Marjan Markovikj University "Ss. Cyril and Methodius" of Skopje, Faculty of Philology "Blaže Koneski" Skopje-Macedonia
Macedonian language tendencies in Balkan context
• Macedonian language occupies central part of the Balkan Peninsula and it is a official language of the Republic of Macedonia (Република Македонија). Macedonian language is spoken by some 2.000.000 speakers. Macedonian belongs to the south group of the Slavic languages. Standard Macedonian was codified and implemented as the official language in 1945, and became one of the official languages in the former SFRJ (Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia).
• Macedonian language is a genetically Slavic language with an inherited grammar and lexicon, transferred to an environment with genetically unrelated languages. Macedonians belong to the descendants of those Slavic tribes which in the 6th century A.D. arrived in the Balkan Peninsula and got in touch with other present-day members of the Balkan linguistic league (Balkansprachbund) in the administrative frame of the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Empire. Especially the Ottoman period (almost 500 years) is a period of intensive linguistic convergence, a period which results with the shaping of the so called Balkan linguistic league. During common contact, and with the goal of achieving clearer communication between the speakers of different languages (Macedonian, Albanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Romani, etc), the languages of the Balkans changed their structure. Their structures adapt and above all, come closer to one another.
• From today’s perspective, Macedonian language is an incredibly interesting complex adaptive system, a fascinating phenomenon. It has in its arsenal the inherited Slavic characteristics and the acquired Balkan characteristics. In its ongoing "independent" development, Macedonian language uses all these means to articulate the conceptualisation of the contemporary world as exactly as possible and to provide clearer communication between the speakers.
(
( ( ( (
(
( ( (
( (
(
( (
(
( (
( ( (
( ( ( (
(
(
( (
( (
( (
( ( )
) ) ( ( Kriva Palanka (
(
( A ( I ( (
B ) )
) R ) ( ( )
E ( B ( ( (
( S ( ( .
) ) umanovo r (
K ( U
a ( )
) ( v ( Blagoevgrad ( i ( L ) r Kratovo
( K (G.Džumaja) G
( ( (
) (
Zletovo ( A )
) R ( Delèevo
( I
( ( ) a
) Tetovo Razlog A
w (
Skopje ( i Koèani
) ( ~ (
( P ) a Sv.Nikole Bansko
sk (
) re ( ( T (
(
( ) Pehèevo ( ( Gostivar ( ( Goce Delèev
a
k Veles ) ) A ( i I Štip Berovo (Nevrokop) d
( a N
a
( ( (
( c R O i Radoviš Sandanski
D ln ( ( M
) E g (Sv.Vraè) e
ea s ( r ta (
C (
B (
( ( ( (
(
A Melnik (
( ( (
) ( M ( (
( (
Negotino (
( (
) ) (
Debar Brod Strumica ( ( (
Kièevo Petriè ( (
V ( ( ( ( ( (
( ( ( Kavadarci (
ar Strumica (
(
d (
) )
(
ar ( ( (
( (
( ( ( (
( ( ( ( ( C a ) k (
rn Prilep e Dojran Valovište )
) R ( D a r n
im r )
) C Drama
(
( Gevgelija (
) S
(
( t
( ( r (
( u
) ) (
( ( m (
( ( Serez ( ( ( ( ( ( a A Struga ( ) ( (
Ohrid (
( (
) L )
) ) )
B Resen ( (
) ( Kukuš
A Bitola
) ) ( ( (
( ) ( N (
(
( k Suho
( (
(
( ( i
( ( )
) l ) ) (
( ( ) ) ) ) ( I ( o ) ) ( A ) Ostrovo G Lagadina
) )
) Voden Enidže-Vardar Lerin (Edessa) Solun )
) Neguš
) )
Korèa )
) Ber ) ) Kostur Kajlar
)
) ) E EEC ) R G a
B ic )
) i r st st ri i ca B ) Macedonian language territory
(
( ( ( (
(
( ( (
( (
(
( (
(
( (
( ( (
(
a ( ( (
(
i (
( (
( ( ( (
(
b (
) ) r
e ) ( ( Kriva Palanka (
( (
( S ( ( B
) u ) ) ) ( ( lg )
( a
( ( (
( ( ( ) anovo ri ) Kum (
. ( a
r (
) ) (
a ( Blagoevgrad ( v Kratovo ( ) ri
( K (G.Dzhumaja)
( ( (
) (
Zletovo (
) ) ( Delchevo
(
( (
) )
Tetovo a Razlog
( (
w Kochani i
) Skopje h
(
c ( ( P Sv.Nikole ) Bansko
a
( k ( ) s re ( T (
(
( ) Pehchevo ( ( Gostivar ( ( Goce Delchev
Veles
) ) Berovo ( (Nevrokop) a [tip k
i
(
d
a Me
( ( (
( s R Radovish Sandanski ta a
ic ( n (
) al (Sv.Vrach)
g ( e (
r (
B (
( ( ( (
(
Melnik (
( ( (
) ( ( (
( (
Negotino (
( (
) )
(
Debar Brod Strumica ( (
(
Kichevo Petrich (
( (
( (
( ( ( ( ( ( Kavadarci (
Strumica (
( (
) ) (
C V ( ( (
rn a ( (
( ( r
( D d (
( r ar ( ( im ( (
) Prilep ( Valovishte
) ) a ( k e
R
) ) a Drama
rn (
( C Dojran (
) S
( ( t
Gevgelija ru
( (
(
( m
) ) ( a
( ( Serez (
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( Struga ( ) ( (
Ohrid (
( (
) )
) ) )
Resen ( Kukush ( A ( ) Bitola
Gumendzhe
) ) ( l ( (
b k i
( l ) (
( o (
( G Suho
( (
(
a ( ( ( ( ) )
) ) ( ( (
) ) ) ) ( ( n ) ) ) ( Ostrovo Lagadina
i ) Voden ) a ) Enidzhe-Vardar Lerin Solun )
) Negush
) )
Korcha )
) Ber ) ) G STATE BORDER Kostur Kajlar r
) ee ) ) ce LANGUAGE BOUNDARY
) B
is )
) tr ca ic tri a is B
) Dialects of Macedonian Language
(
( ( ( (
(
( ( (
( (
(
( (
(
( (
( ( (
( ( ( (
(
(
( (
( (
( (
( ( )
) a ) ( ( S Kriva Palanka ( B ( ( i (
rb ( HE ( ulg
) C ) ) e a S ) ( E ( r
) PE ia
(
(
S ( (
( ( (
) ) NKumanovo (
R r. ( (
) ) (
E a ( Blagoevgrad ( ) H iv Kratovo ( T r
( R K (G.Dzhumaja)
(
( O (
)
(
N Zletovo (
) ) ( Delchevo
(
( (
) )
Tetovo a Razlog
( (
w Kochani i
) Skopje h
(
c ( ( P Sv.Nikole ) Bansko
a
( k ( ) s re ( T (
(
( ) Pehchevo ( ( Gostivar ( ( Goce Delchev
Veles
) ) Berovo ( (Nevrokop) a [tip k
i
( d S
a Me
( ( (
( s R Radovish Sandanski ta a
ic ( T( n
) al (Sv.Vrach)
g ( e (
r (
B (
( ( ( (
( a (
C Melnik
( i ( (
) (
n E ( ( ( (
Negotino (
( (
) ) ( o (
Debar
Brod LStrumica ( (
d Petrich (
Kichevo V ( (
( ( ( ( (
( ( (
eKavadarci ar Strumica (
(
( d (
) ) ( a (
C c r A ( (
rn
( (
( ( DIALECTS I ( D (
( a ( r ( im N ( (
) D M (
Prilep Valovishte
) ) a ( k e
R
) ) a N Drama
rn (
( C Dojran (
) S
(
GevgelijaR ( tr
u
( (
(
( m
) ) ( a
( ( Serez (
WESTER ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( Struga ( E ) ( (
Ohrid (
(
( T
) ) )
) ) S
A Resen ( Kukush ( ) Bitola (
l A Gumendzhe
) )
( b ( (
E k
i
( l ) (
( o (
a ( -
G Suho
( (
(
( (
( ( ) )
) ) (
n ( ( ) ) ) ) ( ( i ) ) ) ( Ostrovo H Lagadina
a ) VoTden ) ) Enidzhe-Vardar Lerin U Solun )
) O Negush ) ) S Korcha )
) Ber )
) STATE BORDER Kostur Kajlar
) ) ) Greece LANGUAGE BORDER ) B
is )
) tr ca ic tri a is B
) Dialect differentiation of Macedonian language territory
(
( ( ( (
(
( ( (
( (
(
( (
(
( ( ( ( (
( ( ( (
(
(
( (
( (
( (
( (
) ) a ( (
j ) ( Kriva Palanka B
( ( i (
b ( ( uga
r )
) ) 3. S ) ( ( r
) ij
( . a
( (
(
( ( (
) ) r (
a ( (
)
) ( Kumanovo v
3. i ( ( ( Blagoevgrad ) r Kratovo
( K
( ( ( (G.Xumaja)
(
) Zletovo (
) ) (
Del~e( vo
a
( (
) )
Tetovo w Razlog ( (
i Ko~ani
) Skopje ~
( ( ( P Sv.Nikole 2.3. Bansko ) a
k
( s ( ) e r ( T (
(
( ) Peh~evo( ( 1.2.1. Gostivar 2. ( (
a Goce Del~ev
k
) ) ( i [tip Berovo (Nevrokop) d . Veles a (
5 a c Me ( ( ( .( i s R n Radovi{ Sandanski ta .2 l
1 a ( (
) g
e (Sv.Vra~)
( 1. r (
B ( (
( ( ( ( ( (
(
. ( ( (
) .4 ( Melnik (
1.2.1.( (
( .2 Negotino 2.1. (
1 ( ( )
) (
Debar Brod Strumica ( (
(
Petri~ (
(
Ki~evo (
( ( ( ( (
( ( (
Strumica ( ( ( (
) ) (
C Kavadarci ( ( (
r
(
n ( ( (
(
V ( ( D 1.2. ( ( r a i r ( ( m 1.1. d ) a (
Prilep r Valovi{te
) ) 2.2. ( a k
1.2.2. e )
) R 2.4.2. ( Drama
a Dojran
( n (
) r S
(
( t
(
( Gevgelija
(
C ( r
)
) ( u
( (
(
Struga ( m Serez ( ( ( ( ( ( ( a ) ( ( ( Ohrid
1 (
( . (
) 2 )
.3
) . ) )
( Kuku{ ( A ) Resen Bitola (
1. Gumenxe
) ) . ( ( 2.4. 1.2 ( k i
l ( l 2.4.2. ) ( ( o
(
( G Suho
( (
(
( (
( ( ) )
) b ) (
( ( ) ) ) ) ( ( a ) ) ) ( Ostrovo Lagadina
n ) )
) Voden Enixe-Vardar i Lerin j ) Solun
a ) Negu{ ) ) 2.4.1. Kor~a ) 2.5.
) Ber )
) DR@AVNA GRANICA 2.5.1. Kostur Kajlar
) 2.5.2
) ) 2.4.1. ) ca B i
i r ) ) 2.5.3. st t Grcija r i c i a Bs
) phonological features
¯Western dialect complex° ¯South-eastern dialect complex° - *½ > e in all positions and in front of c,: cena, cedilo, - group *c½ > ca : cade, calo, cape, calina; cepi, cevka;
- mixing of *j† with *j£ : jazik, jatrva, ja~men, zajak, - mixing of *j† with *j£ did not occur: ezik, e~men, jozik, j»zik, jäzik itn.; i~imen, etrva, zaek;
- protetic j before the reflex of initial *† : ja`e, jatok, - protetic v before the reflex of initial *†: vaglen, vatok, jaglen, jo`e, j»`e; vator, v»tok, v»tor, ...
- fixed stress on antepenultima: vod'enica, voden'icata, - accentual system with free stress, paradigmatic and voden'icava; restricted free stress
- sintagmatic character : n'e-dojde, ne-s'e-gleda, ne-g'o- - stress has no sintagmatic character saka, ne-mu-s'e-gleda i sl.; - the stress influences articulation of the vowels - reduction, - clear pronunciation of the non-stressed vowels; elision
- loss of intervocalic v: Joan, osnoa, jaor, biol, stoloj; - preserving of intervocalic v: govedar, javor, glava, jazovec;
- loss of h and its substitute with f(v) before consonant and - h exists on large area: beh, ko`uh, behme; on the absolute word ending: javna, befte, ~evli, nivno - nifno, piftija, ofka(t), vrf, praf;
morphological - morphosyntactic features
¯Western dialect complex° ¯South-eastern dialect complex°
- plural ending (monosyllabic nouns masc.) is -ove: volove, - plural ending (monosyllabic nouns masc.) is -ovi > o¹ > stolove, virove, kl’u~ove; oj: voloj (volovi), doloj, stoloj, klu~oj (klu~evi);
- three forms of definite article: ~ovekot, ~ovekov, - only one article form; there are no forms with -ov and -on; ~ovekon; `enata, `enava, `enana; deteto, detevo, deteno; lu|eto, `enite, decata;
- personal pronoun for 3 pers. sg. is - toj (taa, toa, tie); - personal pronoun for 3 pers. sg. is - on (ona, ono, oni);
- use of synthetic dative forms in pronouns: : mene mi, tebe - use of na as a dative marker in pronouns system: na mene ti, nemu mu, nejze- nejzi i (je), nam ni, vam vi, nim - mi, na tebe ti, na nego mu, na nas ni, na kogo mu re~e; nimi im, komu, nekomu, nikomu, dem. ovemu, onemu;
- use of synthetic dative forms for kinship and personal - use of na as a dative marker for kinship and personal nouns: nouns: Stojanu, Marko(v)e or Markotu, Petre(v)e or re~e mu na Stojan, na Marko, na Mara; na brat mu Petretu, Iliju, Mari or Mare, tatko(v)e, tetki - tetke, etc.
- generalization of the nominative form for all cases (casus - existence of casus generalis which differs from nominative absolutus): Jovan – na Jovan, sos Jovan; Marko – na form: Stojan – so Stojana, Marko – na Marka, tatko – na Marko; Mile – na Mile; tatka mu, Krste – na Krsteta, bate – od bateta;
verbal system and syntactic features ¯Western dialect complex° ¯South-eastern dialect complex°
- verbal ending -t in 3 pers. singular of present tense: imat, - verbal ending -t in 3 pers. singular of present tense does not nosit, jadet (jadit); exist : vika, se~e, nose - nosi; - third person plural of verb 'sum' is: se - third person plural of verb 'sum' is: sa
- in 3 person plural in compound past tenses the auxiliary "sum" - in 3 person plural in compound past tenses the auxiliary "sum" is omitted regularly: toj do{ol, tie do{le, }e do{ol, }e is preserved sporadically: on e donel, oni sa donele (doneli), dojdel; or: }e e donel, rabotil e bil, }e e igral bil;
- broad use of periphrastic constructions with auxiliaries ‘ima / nema’ and n/t-participle (verbal adjective): ima raboteno, - periphrastic constructions with auxiliaries ‘ima / nema’ and ima{e raboteno, imal raboteno, }e ima raboteno, }e n/t-participle (verbal adjective) are rare or does not exist ima{e raboteno, }e imal raboteno; - frequent use of periphrastic constructions with auxiliary ‘sum’ and - periphrastic constructions with auxiliaries ‘sum’ and n/t- n/t-participle (verbal adjective): e dojden, be{e dojden , e jaden, participle (verbal adjective) does not exist e javen, e biden; - position of the clitics is preverbal, also at the beginning of the - position of the clitics is postverbal, and they cannot be at the sentence: go viknav nego, mu rekov Marko(v)e; beginning of the sentence: karaa se, re~e mu na Marka, rasipa se rabotata;
- reduplication of the object is regular feature - reduplication of the object is possible and it is not regularized
- preposition 'od' can be used for expressing possessivity: - preposition 'od' can not be used for expressing possessivity; deteto ot sestra mi, ku}ata od majka mi; possessivity can be only expressed with preposition 'na': deteto na sestra mi, ku}ata na majka mi;
Western peripheral dialects - Balkan features
(
( ( ( (
(
( ( (
( (
( - three forms of( definite article: ~ovekot, ~ovekov, ~ovekon; `enata, `enava, `enana; deteto, detevo, deteno;
(
(
( ( ( ( (
( ( ( (
lu|eto, `enite, decata; (
(
( (
( (
( (
( ( )
) ) ( ( Kriva Palan( ka
( (
( ( (
) )
) ) ( 3. ( )
( .
( (
(
( ( (
) ) r (
a ( (
)
) ( Kumanovo v
i ( ( ( Blagoevgrad ) - three forms for demonstrativer pronouns:Kratovo - toj, ovoj, onoj;
( K
( ( ( (G.Xumaja)
(
) Zletovo (
) ) (
Del~e( vo
a
( (
) )
Tetovo - use of synthetic w dative forms in pronouns: : mene mi, tebe ti, nemu mu, nejze- nejziRazl io g(je), nam ni, vam vi, nim - nimi ( (
i Ko~ani
) Skopje ~
( (
P dem ( im, komu, nekomu, nikomu,Sv.Nik ole . ovemu, onemu; 2.3. Bansko ) a
k
( s ( ) e r ( T (
(
( ) Peh~evo( ( 1.2.1. Gostivar 2. ( (
a Goce Del~ev
k
) ) - use of synthetic dative forms for kinship and personal nouns: Stojanu,( Marko(v)e or Markotu, Petre(v)e or Petretu, i [tip Berovo (Nevrokop) d . Veles a (
5 a c Me ( ( ( .( i s R Iliju, Mari or Mare, tatko(v)e,n tetki - Rtetke,adovi{ etc. Sandanski ta .2 l
1 a ( (
) g
e (Sv.Vra~)
( 1. r (
B ( (
( ( ( ( ( (
(
. ( ( (
) .4 ( Melnik (
1.2.1.( (
( .2 Negotino 2.1. (
1 ( ( )
) - existence of casus generalis which differs from nominative form: Stojan – so Stojana, Marko – na Marka, tatko – na (
Debar Brod Strumica ( (
(
Petri~ (
(
Ki~evo (
( ( ( ( (
( ( ( tatka mu, Krste – na Krsteta, bate – od bateta; (
Strumica ( ( (
) ) (
C Kavadarci ( ( (
r
(
n ( ( (
(
V ( ( D 1.2. ( ( r a i r ( ( m 1.1. d ) a (
Prilep r Valovi{te
) ) 2.2. ( a k
1.2.2. e )
) R 2.4.2. ( Drama
broad use of periphrastica constructions with auxiliariesDojran‘ ’ and -participle (verbal adjective)
( - n ima( / nema n/t : ima raboteno,
) r S
(
( t
(
( Gevgelija
(
C ( r
)
) ( u
( (
(
Struga ima{e raboteno, imal raboteno,( }e ima raboteno, }e ima{e raboteno, }e imalm rabotenoSerez ; ( ( ( ( ( ( ( a ) ( ( ( Ohrid
1 (
( . (
) 2 )
.3
) . ) )
( Kuku{ ( ) Resen - frequentBitol usea of periphrastic( constructions with auxiliary ‘sum’ and n/t-participle (verbal adjective): e dojden, be{e dojden ,
1. Gumenxe
) ) . ( ( 2.4. 1.2 ( k
e jaden, e javen, e biden; i
( l 2.4.2.
) ( ( o
(
( G Suho
( (
(
( (
( ( ) )
) ) (
( ( ) ) ) ) ( ( ) ) ) ( Ostrovo Lagadina
) )
) Voden Enixe-Vardar Lerin ) - position of the clitics is preverbal, also at the beginning of the sentence:So golu viknavn nego, mu rekov Marko(v)e;
) Negu{ ) ) 2.4.1. Kor~a ) 2.5.- reduplication of the object is regular feature
) Ber )
) DR@AVNA GRANICA 2.5.1. Kostur Kajlar
) 2.5.2 ) ) - preposition 'od' can be used for expressing possessivity: deteto ot sestra mi, ku}ata od majka mi; 2.4.1. ) ca B i
i r )
) 2.5.3. s t tr i c i a Bs
) Modern Macedonian
morphological features
- plural ending (monosyllabic nouns masc.) is -ovi(-evi): volovi, lebovi, stolovi, klu~evi; - three forms of definite article: ~ovekot, ~ovekov, ~ovekon; `enata, `enava, `enana; deteto, detevo, deteno; lu|eto, `enite, decata; - personal pronoun for 3 pers. sg. is - toj (taa, toa, tie); - (on can ocure- more coloquial) - three forms for demonstrative pronouns: - toj, ovoj, onoj; - verbal ending -t in 3 pers. singular of present tense does not exist : vika, se~e, nose - nosi; - third person plural of verb 'sum' is: se - in 3 person plural in compound past tenses the auxiliary "sum" is omitted regularly: toj do{ol, tie do{le, }e do{ol, }e dojdel; - preposition *v¼ is used only in forms v, vo : vo Skopje, v grat, v selo (f selo); form u (u grad) is colloquial - there is no doubling of preposition so: so sila, so maka;
1 Modern Macedonian - morphosyntactic features CASE SYSTEM
There is tendency of loss of morphological case markers (endings) and replacing them with prepositive markers (prepositions). The Southeastern dialect complex is more close to the standard Macedonian regarding the 'analytical' expressing of cases. Nouns - loss of casus generalis which differs from nominative form: Stojan – so Stojana, Marko – na Marka, tatko – na tatka mu, Krste – na Krsteta, bate – od bateta; - generalization of the nominative form for all cases (casus absolutus): Jovan – na Jovan, so Jovan; Marko – na Marko; Mile – na Mile; - use of na as a dative marker for kinship and personal nouns: mu re~e na Stojan, na Marko, na Mara; na brat mu Pronouns The norm proscribes use of synthetic dative forms in pronouns: mene mi, tebe ti, nemu mu, nejze i, nam ni, vam vi, nim im
As Modern Macedonian goes towards full analytism, there is tendency of loss of dative pronoun forms which are replaced by accusative pronoun forms and dative marker (preposition) на: na mene mi, na tebe ti, na nego mu na nejze i, na nas ni, na vas vi, na niv im
Examples: Na mene mi se padna lesno pra{awe. А јас на тебе ти подарувам бакнеж за добра ноќ ангелу мој. ... му ја подаде раката која на него му изгледаше мека како кадифе, На неа и се случуваат и физички и психички последици, непријатности и опасности. Дали и на вас ви се случува истото ?! На вас ви е потребен одмор, фитнес, лесни прошетки и здрава храна.
2 Prepositions (spatial cases)
In Macedonian language, which transited from synthetism towards analytism, prepositions (prepositional constructions) became the main conveyors of the case relations and "prepositive" grammatical markers. Aside for being burdened with case functions, i.e. the relations between the predicate and its arguments, with time, the prepositions also become burdened with another type of function. In this manner, several relationships with metaphorical meaning are established from the basic spatial (and temporal) relationships. Therefore the prepositional phrase is becoming a localization (na rabota, na pazar, pred zgrada, pod masa) and can be ruled by another preposition which determines spatial relation (static or dynamic) so the whole prepositional phrase takes role of a localiser. Regarding the three types of dynamic relations (adlative, perlative and ablative), we can say that in modern Macedonian there is process of 'reorganization' of spatial relations in which the first preposition shows dynamic spatial relation and prepositional phrase is in the role of the localizer. This feature is known in some western peripheral dialects (Ohrid-Sruga-Kichevo region) and also is common for Aromanian:
Го истадов шпоретот од под_скали. Се враќам од на_работа. Овие риби ми требет за на_лекар. U skosh shporetu di sum skăr. Mi tor di la lukur. Aist peshch njă l’ăps`eshti ti la jatur.
3 Balkan Context/Aromanian – Macedonian Parallels
Arom.: U skosh shporetu di sum skăr. Mac.: Го истадов шпоретот од под скали. ‘I took the stove out from below the stairs.’ Arom.: Tărku văr shă njă li l’o lemăli di daninte ali kasi. Mac.: Помина некој и ми ги зеде дрвата од пред куќи. ‘Somebody came and took my wood from in front of the house.’ ______
Arom.: Mi tor di la jatur. Mi tor di la peshch. Mac.: Се враќам од нá лекар. Се враќам од нá риби. ‘I am coming from the doctor’s (literally ‘from at the doctor’s’). *I am coming from at fishing.’ Arom.: Njă esti multu klori shă ljă skosh stranjali di pi mini. Mac.: Многу ми е ладно и ги истадов алиштата од нá мене. ‘It is very cold and I took the clothes off from on me.’
Adlative relation:
1. При откривањето на црквата ја откриеме стратиграфијата, и во едниот дел стигнавме до под темелите. ‘During the uncovering of the church, we discovered its stratigraphy, and in one part we reached to below the foundations.’
2. Oд земјата до над вратата беа наделкани херуви и палми, а така и по ѕидот на Храмот. ‘From the ground up to above the door there were carved cherubim and palms, and more of the same along the wall of the temple.’
3. Секоја година купува петунии за на тераса. ‘Every year (s)he buys petunias for on the balcony.’
4 Тој често се успива за на работа. ‘He often oversleeps for at work.’
Ablative Relation:
1. Маршот ќе има симболичен почеток во 5 до 12 од пред музејот. ‘The march will have a symbolic beginning from 5 to 12 from in front of the museum.’
2. Поаѓање од пред Сава центар во 22.00 часот ‘Arrival from in front of the Sava Centre will be at 12:00 pm.’
3. Професионалните војници се повлекоа од пред Владата. ‘The professional soldiers retreated from the front of the government building.’
4. Чилеанските рудари молат што побрзо да бидат извлечени од под земја. ‘The Chilean miners are begging to be pulled from out of the ground as quickly as possible
The constructions exemplified above have become a fixture in modern Macedonian, and we might draw analogies between the basic spatial sequences in Macedonian (од пред врата, од под скали ‘from in front of the door; from behind the stairs’) and the Romanian sequences of prepositions (di pi masa, di sum skar ‘from on the table, from below the stairs’) (Солецка 1979). Sequences such as од на пазар, од на лекар, од на работа, од на школо and од на мене have neither been recorded nor analyzed in linguistic works. They document for us an analogy that can be drawn between this unique Romanian – and Aromanian – phenomenon and western Macedonian dialects. Modern Macedonian has also embedded this feature in its spatial-case system. The Macedonian language often uses Slavic and Balkan means to facilitate communication. The system of spatial cases, especially dynamic relations, is undergoing reorganization using prepositions governing prepositional phrases to show in a more transparent way two of the most important dynamic relations – adlative and ablative (goal and source). As a conclusion we might say that there is no single process conceived as the “doubling of prepositions.” We are speaking instead about two innovative, semanticly-motivated processes that are reorganizing the grammatical means that convey spatial information: (a) upgrading the strictly spatial-locative function of the preposition na to a universal, abstract locative function (which is a specific Macedonian innovation); and (b) superimposing the dynamic adlative and ablative prepositions over the static prepositional NPs. As a result of this process, adlative and ablative prepositions became dominant exponents of the dynamic spatial relations, while the whole static prepositional NP becomes a localizer.