Loanwords in Selice Romani, an Indo-Aryan language of Slovakia 1 ...
Loanwords in Selice Romani, an Indo-Aryan language of Slovakia 1 ...
Loanwords in Selice Romani, an Indo-Aryan language of Slovakia 1 ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, <strong>an</strong> <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guage <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Slovakia</strong><br />
© Viktor Elšík (Charles University, Prague)<br />
Version 4 November 2007<br />
1. The l<strong>an</strong>guage <strong>an</strong>d its speakers<br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> is <strong>an</strong> <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> (<strong>Indo</strong>-Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong>, <strong>Indo</strong>-Europe<strong>an</strong>) l<strong>an</strong>guage, whose numerous <strong>an</strong>d<br />
rather divergent dialects are spoken by several millions <strong>of</strong> “Gypsies” – Roma, S<strong>in</strong>ti,<br />
Mānuš, Kāle <strong>an</strong>d other related groups – throughout Europe <strong>an</strong>d elsewhere. The variety<br />
under description, <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, is a dialect <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> spoken by ca. 1,350 <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>habit<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>of</strong> the multiethnic village <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> (Hungari<strong>an</strong> Sókszelőce, <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> Šóka) <strong>in</strong><br />
southwestern <strong>Slovakia</strong>. <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> is part <strong>of</strong> a l<strong>in</strong>guistic cont<strong>in</strong>uum <strong>of</strong> closely<br />
related <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialects spoken <strong>in</strong> southwestern <strong>an</strong>d south-central <strong>Slovakia</strong> <strong>an</strong>d <strong>in</strong> north-<br />
central Hungary, which together form the Northern subgroup <strong>of</strong> the South Central group<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialects (cf. Boretzky 1999; Elšík, Hübschm<strong>an</strong>nová & Šebková 1999). 1 The<br />
Northern South Central dialects are <strong>of</strong>ten refered to as Rumungro <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistics<br />
(e.g. Matras 2002) <strong>an</strong>d I will also adopt this term here for its brevity. Although all<br />
Rumungro varieties have been <strong>in</strong>fluenced by Hungari<strong>an</strong>, most Rumungro speakers<br />
presently live <strong>in</strong> ethnically Slovak parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>Slovakia</strong> <strong>an</strong>d are Slovak bil<strong>in</strong>guals, whereas<br />
<strong>an</strong> overwhelm<strong>in</strong>g majority <strong>of</strong> Rumungro communities <strong>in</strong> Hungary <strong>an</strong>d <strong>in</strong> the Hungari<strong>an</strong><br />
parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>Slovakia</strong> have undergone l<strong>an</strong>guage shift to Hungari<strong>an</strong> (cf. Elšík 2003). <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> is one <strong>of</strong> the few ext<strong>an</strong>t Rumungro varieties whose speakers are Hungari<strong>an</strong><br />
bil<strong>in</strong>guals.<br />
The genealogical affiliation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> is shown <strong>in</strong> Figure 1. 2 While I will<br />
discuss lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong>to all <strong>an</strong>cestor varieties <strong>of</strong> present-day <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, commenc<strong>in</strong>g<br />
1 Varieties <strong>of</strong> the other, Southern (or Vendic), subgroup <strong>of</strong> the South Central dialects <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> are<br />
spoken <strong>in</strong> western Hungary, the Austri<strong>an</strong> Burgenl<strong>an</strong>d, <strong>an</strong>d the Sloveni<strong>an</strong> Prekmurje.<br />
2 Note, however, that the character <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialect groups is a controversial issue: although they may<br />
have resulted from separate migrations <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers out <strong>of</strong> Asia M<strong>in</strong>or or the southern Balk<strong>an</strong>s,<br />
<strong>an</strong>d so conform well to the family tree model (Boretzky 1999; Boretzky & Igla 2004), they may also have<br />
developed <strong>in</strong> situ due to feature diffusion with<strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d so represent a convenient reference grid<br />
rather th<strong>an</strong> genealogical units (Matras 2002, 2005). While I tend to see more evidence for the separate<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 1 <strong>of</strong> 65
with Proto-<strong>Indo</strong>-Europe<strong>an</strong>, the term <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> will only be applied, as is usual, to the part<br />
<strong>of</strong> the variety’s genealogical l<strong>in</strong>eage that starts at “the po<strong>in</strong>t at which the l<strong>an</strong>guage<br />
became sufficiently dist<strong>in</strong>ct from other related <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> idioms to be classified as <strong>an</strong><br />
entity <strong>in</strong> its own right” (Matras 2002: 18; emphasis m<strong>in</strong>e). Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> is the<br />
undocumented, but partly reconstructed, common <strong>an</strong>cestor <strong>of</strong> all present-day <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
dialects, which was spoken prior to the dispersion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>-speak<strong>in</strong>g groups<br />
throughout Europe <strong>an</strong>d the consequent split <strong>in</strong>to dialects (cf. Elšík & Matras 2006: 68–<br />
84). Proto-<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (or *Ḍommānī, cf. Tálos 1999) then covers the pre-Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
stages <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (but cf. Matras 2002: 18 for a slightly different use <strong>of</strong> the term). Pre-<br />
split lo<strong>an</strong>words are those that c<strong>an</strong> be reconstructed to have been present <strong>in</strong> Early<br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, while post-split lo<strong>an</strong>words are dialect-specific with<strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. Pre-<strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> refers to the post-Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>an</strong>cestor varieties <strong>of</strong> present-day <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>.<br />
<strong>Indo</strong>-Europe<strong>an</strong><br />
<strong>Indo</strong>-Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong><br />
<strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong><br />
Central <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
South Central <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
Rumungro (= Northern South Central <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>)<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
Figure 1: Genealogical affiliation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
Three ethnic groups are represented <strong>in</strong> the village <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong>: 3 Hungari<strong>an</strong>s, <strong>an</strong>d two<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>ct <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> groups, viz. the “Hungari<strong>an</strong>” Roms, most <strong>of</strong> whom are native speakers<br />
<strong>of</strong> the dialect under description, <strong>an</strong>d the much less numerous “Vlax” Roms, who speak<br />
a different <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialect natively (see Section 3.7). Both <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> groups use the pla<strong>in</strong><br />
ethnonym Rom for their own group <strong>an</strong>d both are called cigányok ‘Gypsies’ by<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong>s, although the Hungari<strong>an</strong> villagers clearly differentiate between magyar<br />
migration scenario <strong>in</strong> the case <strong>of</strong> the South Central <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> group (Elšík 2006), the issue certa<strong>in</strong>ly<br />
requires further research.<br />
3 A score <strong>of</strong> ethnic Slovaks <strong>an</strong>d Czechs <strong>an</strong>d a couple <strong>of</strong> Rutheni<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d Poles have married <strong>in</strong>to<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> or <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> families. The once numerous Hungari<strong>an</strong>-speak<strong>in</strong>g Jewish community <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> was<br />
completele <strong>an</strong>nihilated dur<strong>in</strong>g the Holocaust; the s<strong>in</strong>gle liv<strong>in</strong>g survivor does not live <strong>in</strong> the village<br />
<strong>an</strong>ymore.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 2 <strong>of</strong> 65
cigányok ‘Hungari<strong>an</strong> Gypsies’ <strong>an</strong>d oláh cigányok ‘<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><strong>an</strong> Gypsies’, i.e. the Vlax<br />
Roms. The former are referred to as Rumungri by the latter, who are <strong>in</strong> turn called<br />
Pojáki by the former. Until the 1970s, the Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>in</strong>habited a<br />
separate, densely <strong>in</strong>habited, neighbourhood <strong>of</strong> one-room adobe houses on the<br />
southeastern outskirts <strong>of</strong> the village. Presently, however, they live <strong>in</strong> regular houses,<br />
<strong>in</strong>terspersed among the Hungari<strong>an</strong> population. The Vlax Roms have been based <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Selice</strong> for more th<strong>an</strong> a century, though they were semi-it<strong>in</strong>er<strong>an</strong>t until 1958, when the<br />
Czechoslovak authorities forced them to settle. Their small colony is still located on the<br />
northwestern outskirts <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong>. If counted together, the two <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> groups slightly<br />
outnumber the Hungari<strong>an</strong> population <strong>of</strong> the village. 4 Until recently, however, the<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong>s were <strong>in</strong> a demographic majority <strong>an</strong>d they rema<strong>in</strong> the economically <strong>an</strong>d<br />
politically dom<strong>in</strong><strong>an</strong>t group <strong>in</strong> the village.<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> is prevalently <strong>an</strong> oral l<strong>an</strong>guage. Some Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong><br />
are able to write letters or text messages <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> but the l<strong>an</strong>guage is not used for<br />
regular written communication. Nor is it used <strong>in</strong> mass media or <strong>in</strong> formal education.<br />
Although <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>in</strong> general is <strong>an</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficially recognized l<strong>an</strong>guage <strong>in</strong> <strong>Slovakia</strong>, there is no<br />
recognition <strong>of</strong> the Rumungro dialect specifically <strong>an</strong>d, so far, there have been no<br />
attempts at its st<strong>an</strong>dardization. While all Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> born before 1975 or<br />
so are native speakers <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, <strong>in</strong> some families children are presently spoken<br />
to only <strong>in</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d/or Slovak, <strong>an</strong>d left to acquire some competence <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
adolescent <strong>an</strong>d adult peer groups, if at all. Thus, <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> is not a safe l<strong>an</strong>guage,<br />
though it is not seriously end<strong>an</strong>gered yet. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly, m<strong>an</strong>y Hungari<strong>an</strong> villagers<br />
underst<strong>an</strong>d <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> well, although only a few have some active competence <strong>in</strong> it<br />
<strong>an</strong>d I know <strong>of</strong> no fluent speakers. (See Section 3.7 for more details on the current<br />
contact situation.)<br />
2. Sources <strong>of</strong> data<br />
All the <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> data stem from my l<strong>in</strong>guistic fieldwork, which has been carried<br />
out dur<strong>in</strong>g short but numerous fieldtrips to <strong>Selice</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ce 1997. I have worked especially<br />
4 Roms are taken here to be the people who identify themselves as Roms <strong>in</strong> most <strong>in</strong>formal social contexts<br />
<strong>an</strong>d/or who are identified as Roms/Gypsies by other locals. (Most, though not all, Roms thus def<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
speak <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> natively.) However, only 3% <strong>an</strong>d 4% <strong>of</strong> the villagers declared <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> ethnicity <strong>in</strong> the<br />
1991 <strong>an</strong>d 2001 censuses respectively, which amounts to ca. 7% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> population; two thirds <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Selice</strong> Roms declared Slovak ethnicity <strong>an</strong>d a fifth declared Hungari<strong>an</strong> ethnicity.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 3 <strong>of</strong> 65
with one middle-age female speaker <strong>an</strong>d with people, <strong>of</strong> both genders <strong>an</strong>d different<br />
generations, from with<strong>in</strong> her extended family. Thus, the variety <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
described here represents a familiolect rather th<strong>an</strong> the local dialect <strong>of</strong> the Hungari<strong>an</strong><br />
Roms <strong>in</strong> general. This is import<strong>an</strong>t to stress, as it seems that the <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> lexicon<br />
shows signific<strong>an</strong>t variation across different groups <strong>of</strong> speakers, especially with regard to<br />
the number <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words from Hungari<strong>an</strong>. 5 In addition to her native l<strong>an</strong>guage, my ma<strong>in</strong><br />
consult<strong>an</strong>t speaks Hungari<strong>an</strong>, Slovak <strong>an</strong>d Czech fluently, <strong>an</strong>d she has some basic<br />
competence <strong>in</strong> Russi<strong>an</strong>. While a great m<strong>an</strong>y <strong>of</strong> the LWT lexemes have been acquired<br />
through <strong>an</strong>alysis <strong>of</strong> spont<strong>an</strong>eous narratives <strong>an</strong>d conversations, all <strong>of</strong> these have been re-<br />
checked with my consult<strong>an</strong>ts. A signific<strong>an</strong>t part <strong>of</strong> the LWT lexemes, a third or so, stem<br />
from direct lexical elicitation.<br />
M<strong>an</strong>y Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> etymologies, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g those <strong>of</strong> pre-split lo<strong>an</strong>words, have<br />
been discussed at least <strong>in</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the previous lexical <strong>an</strong>d/or etymological studies on<br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (e.g. Pott 1844–5, Ascoli 1865, Miklosich 1872–1881, Sampson 1926, Wolf<br />
1960, Valtonen 1972, Vekerdi 1983 [2000], Soravia 1988, Boretzky & Igla 1994,<br />
Mānuš 1994, Mānušs et al. 1997, Tálos 1999). Several publications on <strong>in</strong>dividual layers<br />
<strong>of</strong> lexical borrow<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong>to <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> are mentioned <strong>in</strong> Section 3. I have drawn especially<br />
on two sound sources, Boretzky & Igla 1994 (cf. Kostov 1996, Matras 1996) <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Mānušs et al. 1997 (cf. Bakker 1999), <strong>in</strong> etymologiz<strong>in</strong>g pre-split lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, while most etymologies <strong>of</strong> post-split lo<strong>an</strong>words, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g all etymologies <strong>of</strong><br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words from Hungari<strong>an</strong>, Slovak <strong>an</strong>d Czech, are my own. F<strong>in</strong>ally, I have consulted<br />
several publications (Beníšek 2006; Buck 1949; Burrow & Emeneau 1960, 1984; Kuiper<br />
1948, 1991; Lubotsky 2001; Mayrh<strong>of</strong>er 1986–2001; Turner 1962–6; Witzel 1999a,<br />
1999b, 1999c) <strong>in</strong> order to identify lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong>to the Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d earlier stages<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, which, for obvious reasons, have hardly ever been considered <strong>in</strong><br />
etymological studies on <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>.<br />
3. Contact situations<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>an</strong>d its <strong>an</strong>cestor varieties have come <strong>in</strong>to contact with a number <strong>of</strong><br />
different l<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>in</strong> a variety <strong>of</strong> contact situations, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> all likelihood l<strong>an</strong>guage<br />
shift (see Section 3.2). This section is structured chronologically <strong>in</strong>to periods<br />
5 On the other h<strong>an</strong>d, <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> exhibits a great degree <strong>of</strong> homogeneity as far as its morphosyntax <strong>an</strong>d<br />
phonology is concerned.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 4 <strong>of</strong> 65
characterized by contact with a certa<strong>in</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guage or, more <strong>of</strong>ten, with a cluster <strong>of</strong><br />
l<strong>an</strong>guages that may be conveniently discussed together. Although we lack <strong>an</strong>y direct<br />
evidence, it is clear that at least after the out-migration <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers from the<br />
Indi<strong>an</strong> subcont<strong>in</strong>ent, the speakers <strong>of</strong> the immediate contact l<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> were<br />
overwhelm<strong>in</strong>gly dom<strong>in</strong><strong>an</strong>t numerically <strong>an</strong>d politically with regard to the Roms.<br />
Extrapolat<strong>in</strong>g from the similar current demographic <strong>an</strong>d political conditions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong> Europe, we may reasonably assume widespread bil<strong>in</strong>gualism among the Roms dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
their migrations (Section 3.4–6). As the current contact situation (Section 3.7) clearly<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicates, we must always allow for pluril<strong>in</strong>gualism <strong>of</strong> the speakers rather th<strong>an</strong> mere<br />
bil<strong>in</strong>gualism <strong>an</strong>d for periods <strong>of</strong> overlap <strong>of</strong> contact with different l<strong>an</strong>guages.<br />
3.1. Contact with non-<strong>Indo</strong>-Europe<strong>an</strong> Central Asi<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages<br />
Be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong> <strong>Indo</strong>-Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guage, <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>in</strong>herits some <strong>of</strong> the lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong>to<br />
Proto-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> that had been acquired before the Ary<strong>an</strong>s arrived <strong>in</strong> the Indi<strong>an</strong><br />
subcont<strong>in</strong>ent. The source l<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>of</strong> these lo<strong>an</strong>words rema<strong>in</strong> unidentified, although<br />
some authors hypothesize that they mostly represent the non-<strong>Indo</strong>-Europe<strong>an</strong> element <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>an</strong>cient Central Asia, specifically the l<strong>an</strong>guage (or l<strong>an</strong>guages) <strong>of</strong> the Bactria-Margi<strong>an</strong>a<br />
Archaeological Complex <strong>in</strong> the Amu Darya region (e.g. Witzel 1999a: 54; 2003: 52;<br />
Lubotsky 2001). While the source forms <strong>of</strong> the suggested lo<strong>an</strong>words are unattested,<br />
criteria such as irregularity with regard to the <strong>Indo</strong>-Europe<strong>an</strong> phonological, phonotactic<br />
<strong>an</strong>d morphological patterns, together with the restricted distribution <strong>of</strong> the etyma with<strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Indo</strong>-Europe<strong>an</strong>, are used <strong>in</strong> establish<strong>in</strong>g their lo<strong>an</strong>word status (cf. Lubotsky 2001: 301–<br />
305).<br />
Review<strong>in</strong>g all Proto-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> words that are unattested elsewhere <strong>in</strong> <strong>Indo</strong>-<br />
Europe<strong>an</strong>, Lubotsky (2001) argues that m<strong>an</strong>y <strong>of</strong> them are likely to have been borrowed<br />
<strong>in</strong> Central Asia. Of these probable lo<strong>an</strong>words, Proto-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> *matsi̯a- ‘fish’, *r̥ši-<br />
‘seer’, *sūčī- ‘needle’, <strong>an</strong>d *u̯r̥tka- ‘kidney’ have survived <strong>in</strong>to <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (see<br />
Appendix; note Proto-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> ‘seer’, ‘kidney’ > <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> ‘priest’, ‘liver’). In<br />
addition, the borrowed Proto-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> *u̯arā́jʰa- ‘wild boar’ might be reflected <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> bálo ‘pig’, if Mānušs et al. (1997: 28) are correct <strong>in</strong> deriv<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
word from Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> varāhá- ‘wild boar’ (cf. Turner 1962–1966: 520 <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Boretzky & Igla 1994: 19 for a different view). The <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> verb kh<strong>an</strong>d- ‘to<br />
smell’ is based on a lost noun (reconstructable for Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>) that cont<strong>in</strong>ued the<br />
borrowed Proto-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> noun *g<strong>an</strong>dʰ/t- ‘smell’. A few more <strong>of</strong> Lubotsky’s<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 5 <strong>of</strong> 65
lo<strong>an</strong>words have been lost <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> but are cont<strong>in</strong>ued <strong>in</strong> other <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialects<br />
(‘donkey’, ‘tree’, <strong>an</strong>d perhaps also ‘well, source’). Of a different orig<strong>in</strong> – perhaps<br />
Burushaski, perhaps Semitic, perhaps Anatoli<strong>an</strong> (cf. Mayrh<strong>of</strong>er 1986–2001: I, 499,<br />
Witzel 1999a: 29, 55) – might be the Proto-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> etymon for ‘wheat’, whose Old<br />
<strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> reflex godhū́ma- has developed <strong>in</strong>to Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> *giv (e.g. Turner 1962–<br />
1966: 230). The <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> equivalent šužo jiv ‘wheat’, which c<strong>an</strong> be literally<br />
tr<strong>an</strong>slated as ‘cle<strong>an</strong> snow’, must have developed through confusion <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong> older *ďiv<br />
‘wheat’ (still attested <strong>in</strong> closely related Rumungro dialects, cf. Vekerdi 2000: 56) <strong>an</strong>d<br />
the near-homonymous noun jiv ‘snow’ (which reflects Proto-<strong>Indo</strong>-Europe<strong>an</strong> *ǵʰim-<br />
‘cold etc.’, e.g. Mayrh<strong>of</strong>er 1986–2001: II, 815).<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, Proto-<strong>Indo</strong>-Europe<strong>an</strong> *medʰu- ‘sweet dr<strong>in</strong>k, honey’ is, accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
Witzel (1999a: 55–56), a lo<strong>an</strong>word from <strong>an</strong> unknown paleo-Eurasi<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guage <strong>of</strong><br />
eastern Europe or northern Central Asia. If Boretzky & Igla (1994: 183) are correct <strong>in</strong><br />
deriv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> mol ‘w<strong>in</strong>e’ from Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> mádhu- ‘honey, mead’, then this<br />
etymon may be the oldest quotable lo<strong>an</strong>word <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. However, a much later<br />
borrow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>of</strong> Persi<strong>an</strong> mol ‘w<strong>in</strong>e’ (e.g. Turner 1962–1966: 562; Mānušs et<br />
al. 1997: 87), itself <strong>of</strong> the same orig<strong>in</strong>, appears to be a more conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>g hypothesis on<br />
both formal <strong>an</strong>d sem<strong>an</strong>tic grounds.<br />
3.2. Contact with non-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> Indi<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages<br />
As <strong>an</strong> <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guage, <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>in</strong>herits traces <strong>of</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic contacts <strong>of</strong> its<br />
Old <strong>an</strong>d Middle <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>cestor varieties with non-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>of</strong> India.<br />
Kuiper (1991) has shown that already Rgveda, the pre-iron age Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> text <strong>of</strong><br />
the Greater P<strong>an</strong>jab, conta<strong>in</strong>s several hundreds <strong>of</strong> clearly non-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> words. While<br />
the presence <strong>of</strong> Dravidi<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> has long been recognized (e.g.<br />
Burrow 1945, 1946, 1947–8; Burrow & Emeneau 1960, 1984; Southworth 2005a,<br />
2005b), Witzel (1999a, 1999b) argues that they started to enter the l<strong>an</strong>guage only <strong>in</strong> the<br />
middle <strong>an</strong>d late Rgvedic periods. The earliest Rgvedic period, on the other h<strong>an</strong>d, is<br />
characterized by lo<strong>an</strong>words from undocumented Greater P<strong>an</strong>jab substrates. Follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Kuiper’s (e.g. 1948, 1991) work on Proto-Munda lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong>, Witzel<br />
(1999a) refers to the major Rgvedic substrate as Para-Mundic <strong>an</strong>d considers it to be a<br />
western variety <strong>of</strong> Austroasiatic. The number <strong>of</strong> both Dravidi<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d (Para/Proto-)Munda<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>creases <strong>in</strong> post-Vedic times (Burrow 1973: 386, Witzel<br />
1999a: 34). In addition, a number <strong>of</strong> unidentified substrate l<strong>an</strong>guages, such as Masica’s<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 6 <strong>of</strong> 65
(1979) G<strong>an</strong>getic L<strong>an</strong>guage X, have been suggested to have contributed lo<strong>an</strong>words to<br />
regional varieties <strong>of</strong> <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong>.<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> reta<strong>in</strong>s over a dozen <strong>of</strong> non-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> Indi<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong>to<br />
<strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong>, which are, with a few exceptions (e.g. ‘sack’ or ‘straw’), represented <strong>in</strong> the<br />
LWT sample. The bulk <strong>of</strong> the lo<strong>an</strong>words are attested <strong>in</strong>, or have been reconstructed for,<br />
Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong>, though a few may be <strong>of</strong> a later or local orig<strong>in</strong>. For example, <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
purum ‘onion’, a possible lo<strong>an</strong>word from Dravidi<strong>an</strong> (cf. Tamil pūṇḍu ‘onion, garlic’,<br />
Mānuš 1994: 34; Mānušs et al. 1997: 106), appears to be isolated with<strong>in</strong> <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong>. 6<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> the Indi<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> have a more or less established Dravidi<strong>an</strong><br />
etymology (Burrow & Emeneau 1960, 1984; Turner 1962–6), while others cont<strong>in</strong>ue<br />
probable or possible lo<strong>an</strong>words from Proto-Munda (Kuiper 1948). It is possible that the<br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> word murš ‘m<strong>an</strong>, male’ cont<strong>in</strong>ues a lo<strong>an</strong>word <strong>of</strong> Proto-Burushaski<br />
*mruža/mruša- ‘Burusho’ <strong>in</strong>to Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong>. 7<br />
Certa<strong>in</strong>ly the most tell<strong>in</strong>g Indi<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>word <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> is the ethnic autonym <strong>of</strong><br />
Roms, cf. Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> *ṛom *‘Rom; <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> married m<strong>an</strong>; <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> husb<strong>an</strong>d’. 8 Its<br />
<strong>an</strong>cestor form, Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> ḍōmba-, which also survives as the name <strong>of</strong> other<br />
Indi<strong>an</strong>-orig<strong>in</strong> ethnic groups <strong>in</strong> the Middle East <strong>an</strong>d <strong>of</strong> various low castes <strong>in</strong> northern<br />
India (cf. Briggs 1953), is clearly <strong>of</strong> Munda proven<strong>an</strong>ce (Kuiper 1948: 87; Turner 1962–<br />
6: 313; Beníšek 2006). This <strong>in</strong>dicates (though does not prove) that the Ḍōmba were<br />
orig<strong>in</strong>ally a Munda-speak<strong>in</strong>g group who shifted to <strong>an</strong> <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guage (Vekerdi<br />
1981; Beníšek 2006). On account <strong>of</strong> the late attestation <strong>of</strong> the term ḍōmba- <strong>in</strong> <strong>Indo</strong>-<br />
6 It certa<strong>in</strong>ly does not cont<strong>in</strong>ue Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> palāṇḍu- ‘onion’, <strong>of</strong> unclear etymology (Mayrh<strong>of</strong>er 1996:<br />
II, 102) <strong>an</strong>d probably also a borrow<strong>in</strong>g, on account <strong>of</strong> the “suspicious” cluster /ṇḍ/ (cf. Witzel 1999a: 11,<br />
43).<br />
7 Traditionally, the <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> word has been expla<strong>in</strong>ed as a contam<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> m<strong>an</strong>uṣyà-<br />
‘hum<strong>an</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g’, which itself results <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> m<strong>an</strong>uš, with Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> puruṣa- ‘m<strong>an</strong>’ (e.g. Turner<br />
1962–6: 564). The latter has been suggested to be based on the Proto-Burushaski form (Witzel 1999c) but<br />
given the presence <strong>of</strong> m-<strong>in</strong>itial forms such as Mult<strong>an</strong>i <strong>an</strong>d Parya muṛs, S<strong>in</strong>dhi mursu etc. <strong>in</strong> the Indi<strong>an</strong><br />
North West, we may perhaps derive the <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> word directly from <strong>an</strong> unattested m-<strong>in</strong>itial Old <strong>Indo</strong>-<br />
Ary<strong>an</strong> form.<br />
8 While some groups <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers have replaced this orig<strong>in</strong>al ethnonym by various <strong>in</strong>novative<br />
autonyms (e.g. Matras 1999, 2002), all <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialects reta<strong>in</strong> the word’s secondary me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g ‘(Rom)<br />
husb<strong>an</strong>d’, whose development has been elucidated by Beníšek (2006: 14–17). In some dialects, the word<br />
c<strong>an</strong> only be used to refer to husb<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> ethnicity <strong>in</strong> its secondary me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g, while <strong>in</strong> others,<br />
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, it has acquired <strong>an</strong> ethnically neutral me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g ‘husb<strong>an</strong>d’.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 7 <strong>of</strong> 65
Ary<strong>an</strong>, viz. <strong>in</strong> the sixth century CE, Beníšek (2006: 23–24) suggests that the shift did<br />
not take place before the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the Common Era.<br />
3.3. Contact with other <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages<br />
It is likely that, <strong>in</strong> addition to borrow<strong>in</strong>g from the non-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> Indi<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages,<br />
there was also lexical borrow<strong>in</strong>g from other <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> varieties <strong>in</strong>to the <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong><br />
<strong>an</strong>cestor varieties <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. First, there may have been lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong>to Proto-<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
from literary <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages, though – assum<strong>in</strong>g that Proto-<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> did not have<br />
<strong>an</strong>y literate speakers – they would have had to be acquired through mediation <strong>of</strong> other<br />
vernaculars. For example, Turner (1926: 151) suggests that <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> truš ‘thirst’ <strong>an</strong>d<br />
rašaj ‘priest’, both reta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, may reflect early lo<strong>an</strong>words from<br />
S<strong>an</strong>skrit. In a later publication he only derives the latter from <strong>an</strong> unattested North<br />
Western Prakrit form (Turner 1962–6: 118), which br<strong>in</strong>gs us to a second, geographical,<br />
po<strong>in</strong>t:<br />
Turner (1926) argues conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>gly that Proto-<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>ated as a Central<br />
<strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> variety <strong>an</strong>d, somewhat less conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>gly (cf. Woolner 1928; Beníšek 2006:<br />
23–24), that it must have severed its connection with the Central group before the third<br />
century BCE. He also claims that Proto-<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers then migrated to the Indi<strong>an</strong><br />
northwest, which was actually long (e.g. still <strong>in</strong> Turner 1924: 41) believed to be the<br />
orig<strong>in</strong>al home <strong>of</strong> Proto-<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>; there they spent several centuries, borrow<strong>in</strong>g words,<br />
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g several that c<strong>an</strong> be identified specifically as Nortwestern <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> or even<br />
“Dardic.” The ones Turner (1926: 156, 174) explicitly mentions are reflected <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> as štár ‘four’, šó ‘six’ <strong>an</strong>d murš ‘m<strong>an</strong>, male’. However, as Matras (2002: 47)<br />
po<strong>in</strong>ts out, the lexical evidence for the Northwestern contact <strong>of</strong> Proto-<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> is<br />
“marg<strong>in</strong>al <strong>an</strong>d largely <strong>in</strong>conclusive.” Indeed, Turner (1962–6: 742–743) himself appears<br />
to have later revised his Dardic hypothesis regard<strong>in</strong>g the orig<strong>in</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> numeral<br />
‘six’, deriv<strong>in</strong>g it <strong>in</strong>stead from a separate Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> form, <strong>an</strong>d he no more<br />
mentions the possible Dardic orig<strong>in</strong> <strong>of</strong> the other <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> forms.<br />
3.4. Contact with Middle-Eastern l<strong>an</strong>guages<br />
While hypotheses about the time <strong>of</strong> the out-migration <strong>of</strong> Proto-<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers from<br />
India vary tremendously, r<strong>an</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g between the fourth century BCE <strong>an</strong>d the eleventh<br />
century CE, Matras’ (2002: 18) suggestion that the <strong>an</strong>cestors <strong>of</strong> the Roms left the<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 8 <strong>of</strong> 65
subcont<strong>in</strong>ent some time <strong>in</strong> the eighth or n<strong>in</strong>th century CE c<strong>an</strong>not be wildly <strong>of</strong>f the mark.<br />
Between this period <strong>an</strong>d the arrival <strong>of</strong> the Roms <strong>in</strong> the Byz<strong>an</strong>t<strong>in</strong>e Empire (see next<br />
section), Proto-<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> was <strong>in</strong> contact with several Middle Eastern l<strong>an</strong>guages, as<br />
evidenced by lo<strong>an</strong>words attested <strong>in</strong> various <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialects <strong>an</strong>d hence reconstructable<br />
for Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>:<br />
First, there are a relatively high number <strong>of</strong> Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>.<br />
Boretzky & Igla (1994: 329–331) list 67 possible Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong>isms, <strong>of</strong> which over three<br />
dozen are quite certa<strong>in</strong>, while H<strong>an</strong>cock (1995) <strong>in</strong>cludes as m<strong>an</strong>y as 119 potential<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words from Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong>, though m<strong>an</strong>y <strong>of</strong> these are obviously recent, dialect-specific,<br />
borrow<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong>to <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialects <strong>of</strong> the Balk<strong>an</strong>s via Turkish <strong>an</strong>d other Balk<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages<br />
(cf. Matras 2002: 23). Additional lexical Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong>isms not identified or classified as such<br />
<strong>in</strong> either <strong>of</strong> the above lists are identified especially <strong>in</strong> Mānušs et al. 1997. The<br />
overwhelm<strong>in</strong>g majority <strong>of</strong> Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> c<strong>an</strong> be derived from (late)<br />
Middle Persi<strong>an</strong>, although m<strong>an</strong>y allow for, <strong>an</strong>d some appear to require, a different<br />
source. Kurdish <strong>an</strong>d Ossetic are widely held to have contributed a few lo<strong>an</strong>words each,<br />
e.g. Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> *kirivó ‘godfather’ < Kurdish kirîv (Mānušs et al. 1997: 72) <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> *vr̥dón ‘cart, wagon’ < Ossetic wərdon (e.g. Boretzky & Igla 1994: 301,<br />
331; but cf. also Middle Persi<strong>an</strong> wardyūn). <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> reta<strong>in</strong>s two dozen Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong><br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words from the larger Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> pool, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g zij<strong>an</strong>d ‘damage, pity’ from<br />
Persi<strong>an</strong> ziyān ‘damage [etc.]’ (my etymology). 9 Most <strong>of</strong> the Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> are represented <strong>in</strong> the LWT sample, with the exception <strong>of</strong> a possibility particle<br />
<strong>an</strong>d nouns me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g ‘strength, force, power’, ‘whip’, <strong>an</strong>d ‘co-father-<strong>in</strong>-law’.<br />
Second, the <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> lexicon conta<strong>in</strong>s lo<strong>an</strong>words from Armeni<strong>an</strong> (m<strong>an</strong>y <strong>of</strong> which<br />
are themselves lo<strong>an</strong>words from Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d sometimes difficult to dist<strong>in</strong>guish from<br />
immediate Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong>isms). Their number is somewhat lower th<strong>an</strong> that <strong>of</strong> Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong><br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words, though still relatively import<strong>an</strong>t: recent overviews list 34 (H<strong>an</strong>cock 1987),<br />
41 (Boretzky & Igla 1994: 331–332), or 51 (Boretzky 1995) possible items, <strong>of</strong> which<br />
around two dozens are quite certa<strong>in</strong> (cf. Matras 2002: 23). <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> reta<strong>in</strong>s only<br />
n<strong>in</strong>e certa<strong>in</strong> or probable lo<strong>an</strong>words from Armeni<strong>an</strong>, one <strong>of</strong> which is not represented <strong>in</strong><br />
the LWT sample: pativ-ake ‘<strong>in</strong> va<strong>in</strong>, for free’, <strong>an</strong> adverbialized dative <strong>of</strong> the noun<br />
*pativ ‘honour’ < Armeni<strong>an</strong> patiw, which has been lost <strong>in</strong> the variety.<br />
9 The form <strong>of</strong> the noun ziján-i ‘damage’ <strong>in</strong> some <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialects <strong>of</strong> the Balk<strong>an</strong>s (e.g. <strong>in</strong> the South Vlax<br />
dialect <strong>of</strong> Ajia Varvara, Athens; cf. Mess<strong>in</strong>g 1988: 140, Friedm<strong>an</strong> 1989) clearly <strong>in</strong>dicates that it is a<br />
relatively recent Turkism (<strong>of</strong> Persi<strong>an</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>). On the other h<strong>an</strong>d, the form <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> word<br />
makes it clear that it cont<strong>in</strong>ues a Proto-<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>word from Persi<strong>an</strong>.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 9 <strong>of</strong> 65
F<strong>in</strong>ally, four <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> nouns have been suggested to be lo<strong>an</strong>words from<br />
Georgi<strong>an</strong>: ‘plum’, ‘suet, tallow’ (e.g. Pobożniak 1964: 79), ‘eyelash’ (Friedm<strong>an</strong> 1988),<br />
<strong>an</strong>d ‘s<strong>an</strong>d’ (Gr<strong>an</strong>t 2003: 27). None <strong>of</strong> these etyma have survived <strong>in</strong>to <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>:<br />
they have been replaced either by more recent lo<strong>an</strong>words or through a dialect-specific<br />
sem<strong>an</strong>tic shift <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>digenous word (viz. ‘s<strong>an</strong>d’ < ‘dust, powder’).<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ce “[a] thorough <strong>in</strong>vestigation <strong>of</strong> the Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> element <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> from <strong>an</strong><br />
Ir<strong>an</strong>ist’s po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> view is still miss<strong>in</strong>g” (Matras 2002: 23), we c<strong>an</strong>not exclude that Proto-<br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> was also <strong>in</strong> contact with other Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages th<strong>an</strong> those mentioned above.<br />
If, however, the lack <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words from East Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages (with the exception <strong>of</strong><br />
Ossetic, spoken <strong>in</strong> the Caucasus) <strong>an</strong>d Balochi turns out to be genu<strong>in</strong>e, we may<br />
hypothesize a relatively rapid migration <strong>of</strong> the <strong>an</strong>cestors <strong>of</strong> the Roms out <strong>of</strong> the Indi<strong>an</strong><br />
subcont<strong>in</strong>ent to Khoras<strong>an</strong>, a more likely place, it appears, for their acquision <strong>of</strong> Persi<strong>an</strong><br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words th<strong>an</strong> Fars. The further migration route is likewise far from certa<strong>in</strong>: Boretzky<br />
(1995) considers the possibility that the few Georgi<strong>an</strong> words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> were borrowed<br />
via Armeni<strong>an</strong>. Matras (2002: 25), <strong>in</strong> a similar va<strong>in</strong>, suggests that both the Georgi<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d<br />
the Ossetic lo<strong>an</strong>words may have been tr<strong>an</strong>smitted via other sources. Also, most if not all<br />
<strong>of</strong> the suggested Ossetic lo<strong>an</strong>words allow for alternative, Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> or Armeni<strong>an</strong>,<br />
etymologies. Consider<strong>in</strong>g all this plus the well-known fact that Armeni<strong>an</strong> was also<br />
spoken <strong>in</strong> eastern Anatolia, it is quite possible that Proto-<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers never<br />
actually <strong>in</strong>habited the southern Caucasus. Indeed, Matras (1996, 2002: 25) suggests that<br />
the contact <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> with Armeni<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Western Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> could have taken place<br />
simult<strong>an</strong>eously with its contact with Byz<strong>an</strong>t<strong>in</strong>e Greek. This is compatible with, though<br />
not implied by, Toropov’s (2004: 15) conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>g argument that <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> contact with<br />
Armeni<strong>an</strong> must have occurred by the n<strong>in</strong>th century CE.<br />
Import<strong>an</strong>t for the reconstruction <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> migrations is the lack <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong>y<br />
unambiguous pre-split lo<strong>an</strong>words from Turkic, whether immediate or mediated by other<br />
l<strong>an</strong>guages. Ultimate Arabisms are very rare <strong>an</strong>d most likely mediated by other Middle<br />
Eastern l<strong>an</strong>guages (Matras 2002: 25). <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> reta<strong>in</strong>s a s<strong>in</strong>gle Arabism, viz.<br />
humer ‘boiled or baked dough; pastry; noodles’, which has been borrowed <strong>in</strong>to <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
via Persi<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d/or Armeni<strong>an</strong>. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly, Berger (1959) suggests a number <strong>of</strong><br />
Burushaski etymologies for <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, which however are mostly rejected as<br />
unconv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>g by Matras (2002: 24). One <strong>of</strong> Berger’s Burushaskisms, reflected <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> as cid- ‘to pull; draw; suck’, is deemed possible by Matras but it receives a<br />
more conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> etymology <strong>in</strong> Tálos (1999: 257), <strong>an</strong>d so we may actually<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 10 <strong>of</strong> 65
dispense with the assumption <strong>of</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers <strong>in</strong> the Karakoram<br />
Mounta<strong>in</strong>s on their way out <strong>of</strong> India.<br />
3.5. Contact with Greek<br />
While the first historical records <strong>of</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> Gypsies <strong>in</strong> the Byz<strong>an</strong>t<strong>in</strong>e Empire<br />
orig<strong>in</strong>ate from the late eleventh century CE (e.g. Soulis 1961), Tzitzilis (2001: 327–8)<br />
argues on l<strong>in</strong>guistic grounds that <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> contact with Greek must have occurred by the<br />
tenth century. He also suggests that the oldest layer <strong>of</strong> Hellenisms <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> are<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words from Pontic <strong>an</strong>d Cappadoci<strong>an</strong> dialects <strong>of</strong> Medieval Greek, which <strong>of</strong> course<br />
also makes sense geographically. Differ<strong>in</strong>g degrees <strong>of</strong> morphological <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>of</strong><br />
Greek lo<strong>an</strong>words may reflect different layers <strong>of</strong> contact (see Section 5.2). For example,<br />
Greek ðróm-os ‘way’ is fully <strong>in</strong>tegrated as drom <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d is likely to be <strong>an</strong><br />
earlier lo<strong>an</strong>word th<strong>an</strong> that <strong>of</strong> Greek fór-os ‘square; market’, which reta<strong>in</strong>s its Greek<br />
nom<strong>in</strong>ative <strong>in</strong>flections <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. The fact that Greek is the source <strong>of</strong> numerous<br />
<strong>in</strong>flectional <strong>an</strong>d derivational affixes <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (e.g. Boretzky & Igla 1991, Bakker<br />
1997) <strong>an</strong>d the model <strong>of</strong> radical morphosyntactic Balk<strong>an</strong>ization-cum-Hellenization <strong>of</strong> the<br />
l<strong>an</strong>guage (e.g. Friedm<strong>an</strong> 1986, 2000; Matras 1994, 1995) suggests that contact with<br />
Greek <strong>in</strong>volved fluent bil<strong>in</strong>gualism <strong>of</strong> adult <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers. S<strong>in</strong>ce most <strong>of</strong> the Greek-<br />
orig<strong>in</strong> grammatical component is shared by all present-day <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialects, we may<br />
safely assume a relatively homogeneous speech community at the time <strong>of</strong> (early) Greek<br />
contact <strong>an</strong>d locate Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, the common <strong>an</strong>cestor <strong>of</strong> all modern <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialects,<br />
<strong>in</strong> the Byz<strong>an</strong>t<strong>in</strong>e period.<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> reta<strong>in</strong>s three dozen Greek lo<strong>an</strong>words, a third <strong>of</strong> which are not<br />
represented <strong>in</strong> the LWT sample, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g nouns me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g ‘cabbage’, ‘carrot’, ‘fairy<br />
tale’, ‘lap’, ‘jelly’, <strong>an</strong>d several function words. This number contrasts, for example, with<br />
twice as high a number <strong>of</strong> Hellenisms <strong>in</strong> a familiolect <strong>of</strong> Welsh <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (Sampson<br />
1926, counted <strong>in</strong> Gr<strong>an</strong>t 2003: 29). 10 Both numbers certa<strong>in</strong>ly represent a mere fraction <strong>of</strong><br />
all Greek lo<strong>an</strong>words that were <strong>in</strong> use <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dur<strong>in</strong>g its Byz<strong>an</strong>t<strong>in</strong>e period, as<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicated by the sum <strong>of</strong> Hellenisms that have been reta<strong>in</strong>ed at least <strong>in</strong> some modern<br />
dialects <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> outside <strong>of</strong> the Greek-speak<strong>in</strong>g area. For example, Boretzky & Igla’s<br />
(1994) dictionary conta<strong>in</strong>s a list <strong>of</strong> 238 lo<strong>an</strong>words from Greek; Gr<strong>an</strong>t (2003) lists over<br />
10 Gr<strong>an</strong>t (2003: 29) also counts Greek lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> other <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialects such as Lovari (Vekerdi 1983),<br />
but these represent dialect clusters rather th<strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual local varieties, <strong>an</strong>d so these counts are, strictly<br />
speak<strong>in</strong>g, not comparable to the number <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 11 <strong>of</strong> 65
300 items, <strong>of</strong> which 260 he considers to be assured or likely; <strong>an</strong>d there are several<br />
additional Greek items <strong>in</strong> Vekerdi (1983 [2000]) <strong>an</strong>d Tzitzilis (2001) not discussed <strong>in</strong><br />
either <strong>of</strong> the above. Two lo<strong>an</strong>words reta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> have not been previously<br />
identified as Hellenisms, viz. the ethnonyms ungro ‘Hungari<strong>an</strong>’ <strong>an</strong>d servo ‘Slovak’ <<br />
Greek úngros <strong>an</strong>d sérvos ‘Serb’, respectively.<br />
3.6. Contact with South Slavic l<strong>an</strong>guages<br />
The first historical records <strong>of</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> Gypsies <strong>in</strong> the South Slavic area orig<strong>in</strong>ate<br />
from the second half <strong>of</strong> the fourteenth century CE (e.g. Fraser 1992), just before the<br />
Ottom<strong>an</strong> conquest <strong>of</strong> Bulgaria <strong>an</strong>d Serbia, though the first contacts <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers<br />
with South Slavic are likely to have occurred somewhat earlier. S<strong>in</strong>ce early historical<br />
records do not discrim<strong>in</strong>ate between different <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> groups, we are not <strong>in</strong> position to<br />
date with <strong>an</strong>y precision the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the South Slavic bil<strong>in</strong>gualism <strong>of</strong> the <strong>an</strong>cestors<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers on historical grounds.<br />
The South Slavic l<strong>an</strong>guages contribute almost three dozen lo<strong>an</strong>words to the LWT<br />
sample, which amount to two thirds <strong>of</strong> all South Slavic lo<strong>an</strong>words attested <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. Those that are not represented <strong>in</strong> the sample <strong>in</strong>clude <strong>an</strong> ethnic noun refer<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
non-Roms, which has the source me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g ‘(the) coarse (one)’; the comparative adjective<br />
‘worse’, whose suppletive positive-degree counterpart is also a South Slavic lo<strong>an</strong>word;<br />
<strong>an</strong>d more. The number <strong>of</strong> South Slavic lo<strong>an</strong>words was certa<strong>in</strong>ly much higher dur<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
time <strong>of</strong> South Slavic bil<strong>in</strong>gualism <strong>of</strong> pre-<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers. In fact, closely related<br />
Rumungro varieties reta<strong>in</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> Slavicisms that have been replaced by<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, e.g. ‘world’, ‘foreign’, ‘to write’, <strong>an</strong>d more.<br />
A few South Slavic lo<strong>an</strong>words have a relatively wide distribution with<strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
<strong>an</strong>d may be assumed to have been borrowed <strong>in</strong>to the l<strong>an</strong>guage before the out-migration<br />
<strong>of</strong> different <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> groups from the southern Balk<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d their geographical dispersal<br />
throughout Europe (cf. Boretzky & Igla 2004: 9; Boretzky, ms.). One example <strong>of</strong> such a<br />
word is <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> vodro ‘bed’ (cf. Old Church Slavonic odrŭ ‘bed’), which is also<br />
attested, for example, <strong>in</strong> Welsh <strong>an</strong>d F<strong>in</strong>nish <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. Its me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g, too, shows that it<br />
must be a relatively old borrow<strong>in</strong>g: the word has undergone various sem<strong>an</strong>tic<br />
specializations <strong>in</strong> modern South Slavic l<strong>an</strong>guages, e.g. Bulgari<strong>an</strong> odăr ‘pl<strong>an</strong>k bed’,<br />
Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong> odar ‘hearse, catafalque’, or Slovene oder ‘platform, pl<strong>an</strong>k st<strong>an</strong>d’.<br />
Nevertheless, the majority <strong>of</strong> South Slavic lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> are dialect-<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 12 <strong>of</strong> 65
specific lo<strong>an</strong>words, most <strong>of</strong> which are restricted with<strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> to the South Central<br />
dialect group.<br />
Several South Slavic lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> could have orig<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong>y<br />
South Slavic idiom, e.g. zelen-o ‘green’ < zelen. Mostly, however, the distribution <strong>of</strong><br />
the source word is restricted with<strong>in</strong> the South Slavic area, <strong>an</strong>d it is <strong>of</strong>ten possible to<br />
identify the source l<strong>an</strong>guage quite specifically, due to form <strong>an</strong>d/or me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g peculiarities<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>word. For example, <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> erďavo ‘bad, evil, wrong’<br />
clearly derives from Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong> rđav ‘rusty; bad, evil’, s<strong>in</strong>ce the other South Slavic<br />
l<strong>an</strong>guages exhibit very different forms <strong>an</strong>d have not developed the relev<strong>an</strong>t secondary<br />
me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g ‘bad, evil’ (cf. Bulgari<strong>an</strong> răždiv, Macedoni<strong>an</strong> ‘rģos<strong>an</strong>, Slovene rjast ‘rusty’). A<br />
few <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> words, both with<strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong>d without the sample, c<strong>an</strong> be identified even<br />
more specifically as lo<strong>an</strong>words from <strong>an</strong> Ikavi<strong>an</strong> dialect <strong>of</strong> Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong> (Elšík et al.<br />
1999), e.g. cilo ‘whole; all’ < cio ~ cil-, n<strong>in</strong>co ‘Germ<strong>an</strong>’ < nimac ~ nimc-. While quite<br />
a few South Slavic lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> must orig<strong>in</strong>ate <strong>in</strong> Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong>,<br />
almost all <strong>of</strong> them c<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d so it may well be that <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> acquired almost all <strong>of</strong><br />
its South Slavic lo<strong>an</strong>words from a s<strong>in</strong>gle source.<br />
Although there is no historical documentation <strong>of</strong> the out-migration <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>an</strong>cestors <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers out <strong>of</strong> the South Slavic l<strong>in</strong>guistic area, it is quite<br />
likely that it was part <strong>of</strong> wider population movements triggered by the Ottom<strong>an</strong><br />
exp<strong>an</strong>sion <strong>in</strong> the Balk<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d towards Hungary <strong>an</strong>d Hapsburg Austria. It is tempt<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
connect the current presence <strong>of</strong> the South Central <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers <strong>in</strong> the western part<br />
<strong>of</strong> historical Hungary to the large-scale re-settlement <strong>of</strong> Croats to Burgenl<strong>an</strong>d (Gradišće)<br />
<strong>an</strong>d the neighbour<strong>in</strong>g parts <strong>of</strong> Hungary, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the southwest <strong>of</strong> present-day <strong>Slovakia</strong>,<br />
which took place especially dur<strong>in</strong>g the sixteenth century. 11 However, a small piece <strong>of</strong><br />
l<strong>in</strong>guistic evidence appears to <strong>in</strong>dicate a somewhat later out-migration. The only<br />
Turkism among the South Slavic lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> pre-<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, viz. duh<strong>an</strong>o ‘tobacco’<br />
< Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong> duh<strong>an</strong> (< Turkish duh<strong>an</strong> ‘smoke’ < Arabic duhān; cf. Buck 1949:<br />
534), denotes a New World pl<strong>an</strong>t that was <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>in</strong>to the Balk<strong>an</strong>s by the Ottom<strong>an</strong>s<br />
at the very beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the seventeenth century (e.g. Mijatović 2006). This requires<br />
11 For example, the village <strong>of</strong> Hrvatski Grob, located several dozen kilometers to the northwest <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong>,<br />
was founded <strong>in</strong> 1552 by settlers from the Moslavi<strong>an</strong> region <strong>in</strong> Croatia. The local Croati<strong>an</strong> dialect, still<br />
spoken by some elders, conta<strong>in</strong>s <strong>an</strong> Ikavi<strong>an</strong> element.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 13 <strong>of</strong> 65
that there still was contact between pre-<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>an</strong>d (the Turkish-<strong>in</strong>fluenced<br />
varieties <strong>of</strong>) Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong> at this time. 12<br />
3.7. The current contact situation<br />
All school-age or older native speakers <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> are pluril<strong>in</strong>gual, speak<strong>in</strong>g two<br />
or more l<strong>an</strong>guages fluently, <strong>in</strong> addition to <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. First <strong>of</strong> all, they are all fluent <strong>an</strong>d<br />
highly competent <strong>in</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong>, which they use especially <strong>in</strong> their everyday<br />
communication with the Hungari<strong>an</strong> villagers but also with those Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms <strong>of</strong> the<br />
village <strong>an</strong>d the region who are less competent <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> or who do not speak or<br />
underst<strong>an</strong>d <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> at all. Some young children may be monol<strong>in</strong>gual <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>,<br />
although early acquisition <strong>of</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> appears to be the prevail<strong>in</strong>g pattern nowadays.<br />
We do not know when the contact with Hungari<strong>an</strong> started, neither is it clear when the<br />
<strong>an</strong>cestors <strong>of</strong> the Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> settled <strong>in</strong> the village. They reta<strong>in</strong> no memory<br />
<strong>of</strong> their previous homes or migrations <strong>an</strong>d the locals claim that the recently ab<strong>an</strong>doned<br />
settlement <strong>of</strong> the Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms (see Section 1), by far the largest <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> settlement<br />
<strong>in</strong> the region, had been there “from times immemorial.” The bil<strong>in</strong>gualism <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers <strong>in</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> has certa<strong>in</strong>ly lasted for m<strong>an</strong>y generations, <strong>an</strong>d quite<br />
likely for several centuries.<br />
An overwhelm<strong>in</strong>g majority <strong>of</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> are also fluent <strong>in</strong><br />
Slovak, which they use especially at schools <strong>an</strong>d outside <strong>of</strong> the village. 13 Although few<br />
ethnic Slovaks live <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong>, Slovak-speak<strong>in</strong>g villages are located nearby, <strong>an</strong>d so it is<br />
likely that the first contacts <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> with Slovak predate the creation <strong>of</strong><br />
Czechoslovakia <strong>in</strong> 1918, whereafter Slovak became the <strong>of</strong>ficial <strong>an</strong>d dom<strong>in</strong><strong>an</strong>t l<strong>an</strong>guage<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Slovakia</strong>. The contact with vernacular Slovak <strong>of</strong> the region is confirmed by dialectal<br />
features <strong>in</strong> the Slovak <strong>of</strong> elder Roms <strong>an</strong>d by the form <strong>of</strong> some established Slovak<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, e.g. škráteko ‘elf’ from Slovak dialectal škrátek (cf.<br />
st<strong>an</strong>dard škriatok). 14 Nevertheless, it has been the recent <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>of</strong> Slovak mass media<br />
12 The etymon is also found <strong>in</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> as dohány ‘tobacco’ <strong>an</strong>d it c<strong>an</strong>not be excluded that the<br />
immediate source <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> word is <strong>an</strong> unattested dialectal Hungari<strong>an</strong> form *duh<strong>an</strong>.<br />
13 In contrast, some local Hungari<strong>an</strong>s are still monol<strong>in</strong>gual <strong>in</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d hardly underst<strong>an</strong>d Slovak.<br />
14 An early contact with Slovak is, <strong>in</strong>cidentally, also suggested by a peculiar sem<strong>an</strong>tic shift <strong>in</strong> the<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>word <strong>of</strong> the Greek ethnonym sérvos ‘Serb’: the fact that <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> servo me<strong>an</strong>s ‘Slovak’ appears<br />
to <strong>in</strong>dicate that the <strong>an</strong>cestors <strong>of</strong> the Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms still spoke, or at least understood, South Slavic when<br />
they first encountered the Slavic-speak<strong>in</strong>g Slovaks.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 14 <strong>of</strong> 65
<strong>an</strong>d school<strong>in</strong>g that contributed to the general Slovak bil<strong>in</strong>gualism among the Hungari<strong>an</strong><br />
Roms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong>. Most Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> have also acquired at least passive<br />
competence <strong>in</strong> Czech through their exposure to Czech mass media <strong>an</strong>d especially<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g their employment-related stays <strong>in</strong> the Czech part <strong>of</strong> the former Czechoslovakia,<br />
where most families spent between ten to thirty years <strong>in</strong> 1960–1980s. M<strong>an</strong>y <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g my ma<strong>in</strong> consult<strong>an</strong>t, attended Czech primary schools.<br />
Active competence <strong>in</strong> other l<strong>an</strong>guages is <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>an</strong>d usually acquired dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
job-related stays <strong>in</strong> foreign countries. My primary consult<strong>an</strong>t <strong>an</strong>d several members <strong>of</strong><br />
her family spent a year <strong>in</strong> Kazakhst<strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong> early 1990s, where they spoke Russi<strong>an</strong> with<br />
the locals. I am aware <strong>of</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle word <strong>of</strong> Russi<strong>an</strong> orig<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, viz. ďengi<br />
‘money’ < d’en’g’i, which is a rarely used sl<strong>an</strong>g alternative to <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>digenous <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
word.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, a few words about the social <strong>an</strong>d l<strong>in</strong>guistic relations between the<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms <strong>an</strong>d the Vlax Roms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> are <strong>in</strong> order. Both groups consider their<br />
own group to be superior. 15 There is no <strong>in</strong>termarriage between members <strong>of</strong> the two<br />
groups, <strong>an</strong>d social contact is mostly restricted to economic exch<strong>an</strong>ge. The native<br />
l<strong>an</strong>guage <strong>of</strong> the Vlax Roms is a Lovari-type North Vlax dialect <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (cf.<br />
Boretzky 2003), which is quite different from <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. In fact, the Hungari<strong>an</strong><br />
Roms claim that they do not underst<strong>an</strong>d much <strong>of</strong> the dialect <strong>of</strong> the Vlaxs, <strong>an</strong>d my field<br />
observations appear to confirm this. Yet, m<strong>an</strong>y Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms are aware <strong>of</strong> certa<strong>in</strong><br />
salient lexical differences between the dialects <strong>an</strong>d take some pride or amusement <strong>in</strong><br />
cit<strong>in</strong>g “typical Vlax words,” e.g. kh<strong>an</strong>či ‘noth<strong>in</strong>g’ (cf. <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> ništa). All adult<br />
Vlax Roms, on the other h<strong>an</strong>d, regularly use <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, or rather a dist<strong>in</strong>ct<br />
ethnolect <strong>of</strong> it, <strong>in</strong> communication with the Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms. Given the mutual disda<strong>in</strong>,<br />
this asymmetrical pattern clearly reflects the demographic asymmetry between the two<br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> groups <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong>.<br />
The lack <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong>y signific<strong>an</strong>t competence <strong>of</strong> the Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Vlax dialect makes it unsurpris<strong>in</strong>g that there are very few Vlax lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. One <strong>of</strong> them is krísa, a lo<strong>an</strong>word <strong>of</strong> Vlax krísi ‘judgement, trial, tribunal,<br />
court’, itself a lo<strong>an</strong>word from Greek, which is used to refer to a community-<strong>in</strong>ternal<br />
judicial <strong>in</strong>stitution among the Vlaxs (no such <strong>in</strong>stitution exists among the Hungari<strong>an</strong><br />
15 To wit: the Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms consider themselves to be more civilized <strong>an</strong>d progressive, resent<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
wildness <strong>an</strong>d backwardness <strong>of</strong> the Vlaxs, while the Vlax Roms consider themselves to be the only real<br />
<strong>an</strong>d pure Roms, disda<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms as assimilated half-Hungari<strong>an</strong>s (hence also the ethnic<br />
exonym Rumungro, orig<strong>in</strong>ally *Rom-Ungro ‘Gypsy-Hungari<strong>an</strong>’).<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 15 <strong>of</strong> 65
Roms). The Greek lo<strong>an</strong>word is likely to have been present <strong>in</strong> Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, then lost <strong>in</strong><br />
the <strong>an</strong>cestor variety <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d then – as its me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong>d form clearly show<br />
– borrowed “aga<strong>in</strong>” as a cultural <strong>in</strong>sertion from Vlax.<br />
4. Numbers <strong>an</strong>d k<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
4.1. A note on what counts as a lo<strong>an</strong>word<br />
There are 1430 lexemes <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> LWT Sample, <strong>of</strong> which 62.6% I classify<br />
as lo<strong>an</strong>words. In the overwhelm<strong>in</strong>g majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>st<strong>an</strong>ces, the lexemes considered to be<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words here have been borrowed without <strong>an</strong>y doubt, while a t<strong>in</strong>y m<strong>in</strong>ority <strong>of</strong> them<br />
are merely probable lo<strong>an</strong>words. In addition, a couple <strong>of</strong> dozen further words have been<br />
suggested to be lo<strong>an</strong>words (<strong>an</strong>d <strong>in</strong>deed may be ones), but are not counted as such <strong>in</strong> this<br />
paper, because I do not consider their borrow<strong>in</strong>g etymologies to be fully conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>g. In<br />
addition to lo<strong>an</strong>words proper, there are ca. 6% <strong>of</strong> lexemes <strong>in</strong> the sample that are merely<br />
“created on lo<strong>an</strong> basis” <strong>an</strong>d not counted as lo<strong>an</strong>words: these are either lexicalized<br />
collocations or compounds conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a clear or probable lo<strong>an</strong>word, or (synchronic or<br />
merely etymological) derivations from a clear or probable lo<strong>an</strong>word. 16 Semicalques,<br />
which <strong>in</strong>volve borrow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> matter but not borrow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the whole form <strong>of</strong> the lexeme,<br />
e.g. <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> vala-k<strong>an</strong>a vs. Hungari<strong>an</strong> vala-mikor [some-when] ‘sometimes’, are<br />
not considered to be lo<strong>an</strong>words either. This rather restrictive approach to what counts as<br />
a lo<strong>an</strong>word me<strong>an</strong>s that the number <strong>of</strong> words that consist exclusively <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>digenous<br />
morphemes is signific<strong>an</strong>tly smaller th<strong>an</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> words that are classified as non-<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words.<br />
16 The <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> noun žuto ‘yolk’, for example, has developed through onomasiological conversion<br />
<strong>of</strong> the adjective žuto ‘yellow’, which is a clear lo<strong>an</strong>word <strong>of</strong> Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong> žut ‘yellow’. The conversion<br />
may have occurred due to pattern borrow<strong>in</strong>g from Hungari<strong>an</strong>, cf. sárga ‘yellow’ <strong>an</strong>d (tojás-)sárgá-ja<br />
[(egg-)yellow-3SG.POSS] ‘yolk’. Although the (base) form <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> noun is identical to that<br />
<strong>of</strong> the borrowed adjective <strong>an</strong>d although the noun’s development through conversion may have been<br />
contact-<strong>in</strong>duced, the noun is not considered to be a lo<strong>an</strong>word, s<strong>in</strong>ce there is no noun <strong>of</strong> the relev<strong>an</strong>t form<br />
<strong>an</strong>d me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the source l<strong>an</strong>guage (cf. Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong> žum<strong>an</strong>ce, žum<strong>an</strong>jak, žut<strong>an</strong>jak, žutac etc. ‘yolk’).<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 16 <strong>of</strong> 65
4.2. <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> by source l<strong>an</strong>guage<br />
It is <strong>of</strong>ten difficult to identify the immediate source l<strong>an</strong>guage <strong>of</strong> a lo<strong>an</strong>word precisely,<br />
especially due to genealogical relatedness or contact between source l<strong>an</strong>guages. For<br />
example, <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> kopaj ‘stick; club’ c<strong>an</strong> be a lo<strong>an</strong>word from Pontic Greek, but<br />
also from Armeni<strong>an</strong> or Kurdish, which borrowed the Greek word (cf. Tzitzilis 2001:<br />
332). Given this, I f<strong>in</strong>d it useful to simplify the qu<strong>an</strong>titative presentation <strong>of</strong> the data by<br />
lump<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g cases, several source l<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>in</strong>to “contact clusters:” the<br />
INDIAN cluster consists <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong>to Old <strong>an</strong>d Middle <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> from<br />
(Para/Proto-)Munda <strong>an</strong>d/or Dravidi<strong>an</strong> (see Sections 3.2); the SOUTH SLAVIC cluster<br />
subsumes <strong>an</strong>y South Slavic source (see Section 3.6); <strong>an</strong>d, f<strong>in</strong>ally, the SLOVAK/CZECH<br />
cluster consists <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words from both Slovak <strong>an</strong>d Czech. In addition, I took a few<br />
arbitrary decisions, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the follow<strong>in</strong>g: lo<strong>an</strong>words that c<strong>an</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>ate <strong>in</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong><br />
are counted as Hungari<strong>an</strong>, even if they c<strong>an</strong> also orig<strong>in</strong>ate <strong>in</strong> Slovak/Czech <strong>an</strong>d/or South<br />
Slavic; <strong>an</strong>d lo<strong>an</strong>words that c<strong>an</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>ate <strong>in</strong> South Slavic <strong>an</strong>d Slovak/Czech are counted<br />
as South Slavic. Table 1 shows the breakdown <strong>of</strong> sample lo<strong>an</strong>words by source l<strong>an</strong>guage<br />
or cluster:<br />
Source l<strong>an</strong>guage # % <strong>of</strong> words % <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
pre-Indi<strong>an</strong> 3 0.2 0.3<br />
Indi<strong>an</strong> 12 0.8 1.3<br />
Persi<strong>an</strong> 18 1.3 2.0<br />
Kurdish 1 0.1 0.1<br />
Ossetic 2 0.1 0.2<br />
Armeni<strong>an</strong> 9 0.6 1.0<br />
Greek 25 1.7 2.8<br />
South Slavic 32 2.2 3.6<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> 753.5 52.7 84.2<br />
Slovak/Czech 38 2.7 4.2<br />
Vlax <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 2 0.1 0.2<br />
Total lo<strong>an</strong>words 895.5 62.6 100.0<br />
Total words 1430 100.0 –<br />
Table 1: <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> by source l<strong>an</strong>guage<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong>, the primary current contact l<strong>an</strong>guage <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, is far <strong>an</strong>d<br />
away the most import<strong>an</strong>t source <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words, contribut<strong>in</strong>g the bulk <strong>of</strong> all lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
<strong>an</strong>d over half <strong>of</strong> all words <strong>in</strong> the sample. This statement rema<strong>in</strong>s true even if items that<br />
may but need not be immediate lo<strong>an</strong>words from Hungari<strong>an</strong> are discounted. In addition,<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 17 <strong>of</strong> 65
there are hundreds <strong>of</strong> established lo<strong>an</strong>words from Hungari<strong>an</strong> that are regularly used <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> but whose me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>gs are not represented <strong>in</strong> the sample. Unsupris<strong>in</strong>gly,<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> is also a frequent source <strong>of</strong> nonce lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> discourse. In<br />
contrast, the other contact l<strong>an</strong>guages or clusters, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g all past contact l<strong>an</strong>guages,<br />
each contribute less th<strong>an</strong> a twentieth <strong>of</strong> all lo<strong>an</strong>words. Although nonce lo<strong>an</strong>words from<br />
Slovak <strong>an</strong>d Czech <strong>of</strong>ten occur <strong>in</strong> the speech <strong>of</strong> m<strong>an</strong>y <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers, the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> established Slovak or Czech lo<strong>an</strong>words c<strong>an</strong>not be much higher th<strong>an</strong> the one<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicated by the sample. Consider<strong>in</strong>g the fact that <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers are fluent<br />
active bil<strong>in</strong>guals <strong>in</strong> Slovak, <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>y <strong>of</strong> them <strong>in</strong> Czech as well, the great qu<strong>an</strong>titative<br />
disproportion between the Hungari<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d the Slovak(/Czech) lexical components <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> is strik<strong>in</strong>g. Assum<strong>in</strong>g that the length <strong>of</strong> contact is hardly the only factor,<br />
the disproportion is <strong>in</strong> need <strong>of</strong> a detailed sociol<strong>in</strong>guistic expl<strong>an</strong>ation.<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ce there is no space here to discuss <strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong>y detail the ultimate <strong>an</strong>d <strong>in</strong>termediate<br />
sources <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words, I will restrict myself to a few remarks: The current<br />
contact l<strong>an</strong>guages Hungari<strong>an</strong>, Slovak <strong>an</strong>d Czech have mediated a number <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
from Germ<strong>an</strong>, Lat<strong>in</strong>, French, Itali<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d other l<strong>an</strong>guages. Hungari<strong>an</strong> is also the<br />
immediate source <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> Slavisms (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g recent Slovakisms <strong>in</strong> the local<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> dialect) <strong>an</strong>d Turkisms (mostly <strong>of</strong> Oghuric affiliation). In addition to direct<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words from Greek there are also several ultimate Hellenisms <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> that<br />
entered the l<strong>an</strong>guage via Hungari<strong>an</strong>, Slovak/Czech or Vlax <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. On the other h<strong>an</strong>d,<br />
immediate contact with Greek also <strong>in</strong>troduced a couple <strong>of</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong>d ultimately<br />
Germ<strong>an</strong>ic (via Itali<strong>an</strong>: ‘soap’) <strong>an</strong>d Turkic (via Slavic: ‘Hungari<strong>an</strong>’) words. Direct<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words from Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages contrast with Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong>isms acquired via Armeni<strong>an</strong>,<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> (e.g. ‘thous<strong>an</strong>d’) or via Turkish <strong>an</strong>d South Slavic (‘cotton’). Names <strong>of</strong><br />
several pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d products orig<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> South Asia have been re-<strong>in</strong>troduced via<br />
Europe<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages (e.g. ‘black pepper’, ‘rice’, or ‘sugar’). Lexical borrow<strong>in</strong>g has<br />
resulted <strong>in</strong> several etymological doublets <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>.<br />
4.3. <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> by word class<br />
The st<strong>an</strong>dard breakdown <strong>of</strong> sample lo<strong>an</strong>words by sem<strong>an</strong>tic word class is shown <strong>in</strong> Table<br />
2. 17<br />
17 The <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> morphosyntactic word classes Verb, Noun, <strong>an</strong>d Adjective closely match the<br />
sem<strong>an</strong>tic word classes. Almost <strong>an</strong>y <strong>in</strong>dividual LWT me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> a certa<strong>in</strong> sem<strong>an</strong>tic word class (as<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicated <strong>in</strong> the database template) c<strong>an</strong> be, provided it is lexicalized at all <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, rendered by<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 18 <strong>of</strong> 65
Source<br />
l<strong>an</strong>guage<br />
Nouns Verbs Adjectives Adverbs Function<br />
words<br />
Total<br />
pre-Indi<strong>an</strong> 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2<br />
Indi<strong>an</strong> 0.8 0.3 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.8<br />
Persi<strong>an</strong> 1.3 1.2 1.6 0.0 0.9 1.3<br />
Kurdish 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1<br />
Ossetic 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1<br />
Armeni<strong>an</strong> 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6<br />
Greek 2.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 4.3 1.8<br />
South Slavic 2.2 1.2 4.0 0.0 3.4 2.2<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> 63.0 41.0 42.1 50.0 21.8 52.7<br />
Slovak/Czech 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7<br />
Vlax <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1<br />
<strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> 75.6 44.7 51.7 50.0 30.3 62.6<br />
Non-lo<strong>an</strong>words 24.4 55.3 48.3 50.0 69.7 37.4<br />
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0<br />
Table 2: <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> by sem<strong>an</strong>tic word class (percentages)<br />
Of all word classes, nouns exhibit the highest proportion <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words: over three<br />
quarters. The other content word classes lag beh<strong>in</strong>d nouns <strong>an</strong>d are roughly similar to<br />
one <strong>an</strong>other with regard to lo<strong>an</strong>word proportions: lo<strong>an</strong>words represent half <strong>of</strong> all<br />
adverbs, just over half <strong>of</strong> all adjectives, <strong>an</strong>d somewhat less th<strong>an</strong> half <strong>of</strong> all verbs.<br />
However, adverbs only amount to 4 items <strong>in</strong> the LWT template, <strong>an</strong>d so the proportion<br />
<strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>-adverbs is clearly beyond statistical signific<strong>an</strong>ce. In fact, all <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
m<strong>an</strong>ner adverbs that sem<strong>an</strong>tically correspond to Hungari<strong>an</strong>-orig<strong>in</strong> adjectives are<br />
themselves lexical borrow<strong>in</strong>gs from Hungari<strong>an</strong>, rather then <strong>in</strong>ternal derivations from the<br />
borrowed adjectives, <strong>an</strong>d so the proportion <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>-adverbs could be very different <strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong><br />
extended me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g sample. F<strong>in</strong>ally, function words show the lowest proportion <strong>of</strong> LWT<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words: just below a third.<br />
Table 3 displays the proportions <strong>of</strong> selected diachronic layers <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words to all<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words by word class (the word classes are arr<strong>an</strong>ged by decreas<strong>in</strong>g lo<strong>an</strong>word<br />
proportions), plus arithmetical differences from the total proportion <strong>of</strong> this k<strong>in</strong>d. The<br />
<strong>an</strong> expression <strong>of</strong> the correspond<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>an</strong>guage-specific morphosyntactic word class. There are only very<br />
few exceptions: for example, there is no adjective me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g ‘st<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g’, only a verb me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g ‘to st<strong>in</strong>k’ <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. Consequently, the breakdown <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words by <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> word classes would show<br />
numbers almost identical to those <strong>of</strong> Table 2.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 19 <strong>of</strong> 65
diachronic layers considered are: lo<strong>an</strong>words from Hungari<strong>an</strong>; lo<strong>an</strong>words from all current<br />
contact l<strong>an</strong>guages, i.e. Hungari<strong>an</strong>, Slovak, Czech, <strong>an</strong>d Vlax <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>; <strong>an</strong>d lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
acquired s<strong>in</strong>ce the contact with Greek, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g those from the current contact<br />
l<strong>an</strong>guages, i.e. roughly dur<strong>in</strong>g the last millenium.<br />
Word class Lo<strong>an</strong>s Hungari<strong>an</strong> Current L2s Last 1000 years<br />
Nouns 75.6 83.3 –0.9 89.3 +0.6 94.9 –0.1<br />
Adjectives 51.7 81.4 –2.8 82.9 –5.8 90.7 –4.3<br />
Adverbs 50.0 100.0 +15.8 100.0 +11.3 100.0 +5.0<br />
Verbs 44.7 91.9 +7.7 91.9 +3.2 96.6 +1.6<br />
Function words 30.3 71.8 –12.4 71.8 –16.9 97.1 +2.1<br />
Total 62.6 84.2 0.0 88.7 0.0 95.0 0.0<br />
Table 3: <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> by sem<strong>an</strong>tic word class <strong>an</strong>d diachronic layer (percentages)<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words (<strong>an</strong>d the current lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> general) represent over four<br />
fifths <strong>of</strong> all lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong>y content word class; the proportion is somewhat lower <strong>in</strong><br />
function words. At least 90% <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong>y word class have been borrowed<br />
with<strong>in</strong> the last millenium <strong>of</strong> the history <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. The follow<strong>in</strong>g may also be<br />
read <strong>of</strong>f Tables 2 <strong>an</strong>d 3: Hungari<strong>an</strong> is unique among the source l<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>in</strong><br />
contribut<strong>in</strong>g a higher proportion <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>-verbs th<strong>an</strong> that <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>-nouns (with regard to all<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>of</strong> the respective word class). Slovak <strong>an</strong>d Czech only contribute nouns, not<br />
other word classes. The LWT sample appears to be representative <strong>in</strong> this respect:<br />
although there is <strong>an</strong> established mech<strong>an</strong>ism for morphological <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>of</strong> Slovak <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Czech verbs (see Section 5.4), they appear to be overwhelm<strong>in</strong>gly, if not exclusively,<br />
nonce lo<strong>an</strong>words; <strong>an</strong>d there are no established mech<strong>an</strong>isms for morphological<br />
<strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>of</strong> Slovak <strong>an</strong>d Czech adjectives.<br />
4.4. <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> by sem<strong>an</strong>tic field<br />
The st<strong>an</strong>dard breakdown <strong>of</strong> LWT lo<strong>an</strong>words by sem<strong>an</strong>tic fields is shown <strong>in</strong> Table 4.<br />
Table 5, <strong>an</strong>alogous to Table 3 <strong>in</strong> Section 4.3, displays the proportions <strong>of</strong> selected<br />
diachronic layers <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words to all lo<strong>an</strong>words by sem<strong>an</strong>tic field.<br />
[Table 4 around here]<br />
Sem<strong>an</strong>tic field (field number) Lo<strong>an</strong>s Hungari<strong>an</strong> Current L2s Last 1000 years<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 20 <strong>of</strong> 65
The house 7 92.7 79.3 –4.9 90.6 +1.9 100.0 +5.0<br />
The modern world 23 92.3 95.9 +11.7 99.2 +10.5 100.0 +5.0<br />
Agriculture <strong>an</strong>d vegetation 8 90.0 82.1 –2.1 89.8 +1.1 98.1 +3.1<br />
Cloth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong>d groom<strong>in</strong>g 6 86.7 82.2 –2.0 86.0 –2.7 88.6 –6.4<br />
Warfare <strong>an</strong>d hunt<strong>in</strong>g 20 81.4 84.3 +0.1 95.7 +7.0 100.0 +5.0<br />
Animals 3 77.8 84.1 –0.1 95.1 +6.4 97.9 +2.9<br />
Social <strong>an</strong>d political relations 19 76.8 94.9 +10.7 94.9 +6.2 100.0 +5.0<br />
The physical world 1 72.7 92.4 +8.2 92.4 +3.7 95.7 +0.7<br />
Religion <strong>an</strong>d belief 22 63.5 60.6 –23.6 72.8 –15.9 81.9 –13.1<br />
Speech <strong>an</strong>d l<strong>an</strong>guage 18 62.2 92.0 +7.8 92.0 +3.3 100.0 +5.0<br />
Law 21 61.3 85.8 +1.6 100.0 +11.3 100.0 +5.0<br />
Basic actions <strong>an</strong>d technology 9 60.5 87.9 +3.7 92.4 +3.7 97.9 +2.9<br />
Food <strong>an</strong>d dr<strong>in</strong>k 5 60.1 78.7 –5.5 80.9 –7.8 87.2 –7.8<br />
Time 14 59.2 89.7 +5.5 89.7 +1.0 100.0 +5.0<br />
The body 4 57.0 80.4 –3.8 82.6 –6.1 88.6 –6.4<br />
Motion 10 56.4 86.5 +2.3 86.5 –2.2 95.4 +0.4<br />
Sense perception 15 55.4 83.9 –0.3 83.9 –4.8 91.9 –3.1<br />
Emotions <strong>an</strong>d values 16 51.7 77.9 –6.3 77.9 –10.8 93.4 –1.6<br />
Possession 11 51.2 77.5 –6.7 90.2 +1.5 94.5 –0.5<br />
Cognition 17 50.7 100.0 +15.8 100.0 +11.3 100.0 +5.0<br />
Spatial relations 12 47.7 82.4 –1.8 87.8 –0.9 93.3 –1.7<br />
Qu<strong>an</strong>tity 13 37.0 51.9 –32.3 51.9 –36.8 93.2 –1.8<br />
K<strong>in</strong>ship 2 32.1 80.7 –3.5 84.4 –4.3 91.9 –3.1<br />
Function words 24 8.9 0.0 –84.2 0.0 –88.7 49.4 –45.6<br />
Total 62.6 84.2 0.0 88.7 0.0 95.0 0.0<br />
Table 5: <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> by sem<strong>an</strong>tic field <strong>an</strong>d diachronic layer (percentages)<br />
Disregard<strong>in</strong>g the field Function Words for the moment, we may observe the<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g: All fields conta<strong>in</strong> from just below a third to over 90% lo<strong>an</strong>words. The<br />
overwhelm<strong>in</strong>g majority <strong>of</strong> fields conta<strong>in</strong> more lo<strong>an</strong>words th<strong>an</strong> non-lo<strong>an</strong>words (with the<br />
exception <strong>of</strong> K<strong>in</strong>ship, Qu<strong>an</strong>tity, <strong>an</strong>d Spatial Relations), <strong>an</strong>d around a third <strong>of</strong> fields<br />
conta<strong>in</strong> more th<strong>an</strong> three quarters <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words. The proportion <strong>of</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
to all lo<strong>an</strong>words r<strong>an</strong>ges between a half <strong>an</strong>d all <strong>in</strong> different sem<strong>an</strong>tic fields, with the bulk<br />
<strong>of</strong> fields show<strong>in</strong>g more th<strong>an</strong> three quarters <strong>of</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words. The proportions <strong>of</strong><br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words from all current contact l<strong>an</strong>guages do not present a signific<strong>an</strong>tly different<br />
picture. At least four fifths <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong>y sem<strong>an</strong>tic field, <strong>an</strong>d <strong>of</strong>ten all <strong>of</strong> them,<br />
have been borrowed with<strong>in</strong> the last millenium. The fields that conta<strong>in</strong> fewer lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
<strong>in</strong> general also tend to conta<strong>in</strong>, with some exceptions, a smaller proportion <strong>of</strong> the more<br />
recent, Greek <strong>an</strong>d post-Greek, lo<strong>an</strong>words to all lo<strong>an</strong>words (s<strong>in</strong>ce, however, the statistical<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 21 <strong>of</strong> 65
signific<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>of</strong> the proportions <strong>of</strong> different lo<strong>an</strong>word layers will differ greatly for<br />
different fields, this latter observation should not be given too much weight).<br />
There is certa<strong>in</strong>ly no s<strong>in</strong>gle pr<strong>in</strong>ciple beh<strong>in</strong>d the order<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the LWT sem<strong>an</strong>tic<br />
fields with regard to the proportion <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words they conta<strong>in</strong>. Nevertheless, it may be<br />
observed that several fields consist<strong>in</strong>g, to a considerable extent, <strong>of</strong> abstract concepts<br />
(e.g. Qu<strong>an</strong>tity, Spatial Relations, Cognition, Possession, or Emotions <strong>an</strong>d Values)<br />
possess relatively low proportions <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words, whereas numerous fields that mostly<br />
conta<strong>in</strong> very concrete me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>gs (e.g. The House, The Modern World, Agriculture <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Vegetation, Cloth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong>d Groom<strong>in</strong>g, or Animals) possess relatively high proportions <strong>of</strong><br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words. Some <strong>of</strong> those sem<strong>an</strong>tic fields that st<strong>an</strong>d out <strong>in</strong> Table 5 <strong>in</strong> various respects<br />
are discussed below:<br />
The field The House shows the highest proportion <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words. There are only three LWT<br />
me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>gs that must be expressed by <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>digenous word: ‘house’, ‘door’, <strong>an</strong>d ‘to live,<br />
dwell’ (< ‘to sit’). 18 It is likely that some lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> this field have been cultural<br />
<strong>in</strong>sertions accomp<strong>an</strong>y<strong>in</strong>g the speakers’ sedentarization <strong>an</strong>d other ch<strong>an</strong>ges <strong>in</strong> their dwell<strong>in</strong>g<br />
patterns <strong>an</strong>d conditions (e.g. ‘room’), although other lo<strong>an</strong>words have demonstrably replaced<br />
<strong>in</strong>digenous words (e.g. ‘board’) or pre-sedentarization lo<strong>an</strong>words (e.g. ‘stove’). It thus<br />
rema<strong>in</strong>s unclear to what extent extral<strong>in</strong>guistic factors c<strong>an</strong> be made responsible for the<br />
extremely high proportion <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> this sem<strong>an</strong>tic doma<strong>in</strong>. The fact that this LWT<br />
field consists almost exclusively <strong>of</strong> nouns, which are the most borrowable word class <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (see Section 4.3), may also be signific<strong>an</strong>t.<br />
The second highest proportion <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> the field The Modern World is not<br />
surpris<strong>in</strong>g. Unlike The House, this field conta<strong>in</strong>s, expectedly, <strong>an</strong> above-average proportion<br />
<strong>of</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d current lo<strong>an</strong>words. In fact, the only pre-Hungari<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>word <strong>in</strong> this field,<br />
caklo ‘glass [material]; bottle’ from South Slavic, has acquired its latter, modern-world,<br />
me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g through calqu<strong>in</strong>g the polysemy <strong>of</strong> the Hungari<strong>an</strong> noun üveg. In addition, there are<br />
a few relatively recent <strong>in</strong>ternal derivations <strong>in</strong> this field, <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>digenous noun me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
‘song’, which is <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>cient rather th<strong>an</strong> modern concept <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> culture.<br />
The field Religion <strong>an</strong>d Belief st<strong>an</strong>ds out <strong>in</strong> show<strong>in</strong>g the highest proportion <strong>of</strong> old, pre-<br />
Greek, lo<strong>an</strong>words. However, given that there are only three <strong>of</strong> them, viz. ‘priest’, ‘witch’<br />
18 In addition, there is <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>digenous noun me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g ‘space under one’s head <strong>in</strong> bed’ (whereas ‘pillow’ is a<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>word), <strong>an</strong>d two polysemous <strong>in</strong>digenous nouns that c<strong>an</strong> be used to refer to ‘floor’ (primarily ‘earth;<br />
l<strong>an</strong>d’) <strong>an</strong>d ‘bed’ (primarily ‘place’), for both <strong>of</strong> which there are borrowed synonyms <strong>in</strong> the relev<strong>an</strong>t<br />
specific me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 22 <strong>of</strong> 65
<strong>an</strong>d ‘sorcerer, wizard’ (the field conta<strong>in</strong>s relatively few words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>), their<br />
outst<strong>an</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g proportion is probably not statistically signific<strong>an</strong>t.<br />
The field Qu<strong>an</strong>tity has a relatively low proportion <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>an</strong>d, especially, the lowest<br />
proportion <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words from Hungari<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d from <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>’s current contact<br />
l<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>in</strong> general. Almost a half <strong>of</strong> qu<strong>an</strong>tity lo<strong>an</strong>words were borrowed from <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>’s previous Europe<strong>an</strong> contact l<strong>an</strong>guages, viz. Greek <strong>an</strong>d South Slavic, which<br />
otherwise contribute much smaller proportions <strong>of</strong> lexicon.<br />
The lowest proportion <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words is found <strong>in</strong> the field K<strong>in</strong>ship, although they still amount<br />
to almost a third <strong>of</strong> all K<strong>in</strong>ship words. Moreover, numerous expressions <strong>in</strong> this field are<br />
collocations conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a lo<strong>an</strong>word or derivations from a lo<strong>an</strong>word, <strong>an</strong>d so the proportion <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>digenous words is much lower. Indigenous k<strong>in</strong> terms that are used by all <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
speakers are restricted to ‘brother’, ‘sister’, ‘father’, <strong>an</strong>d ‘mother’ (the latter, however, may<br />
be a lo<strong>an</strong>word). Only the older generations <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers also use <strong>in</strong>digenous<br />
words for ‘father-<strong>in</strong>-law’, ‘mother-<strong>in</strong>-law’, <strong>an</strong>d ‘daughter-<strong>in</strong>-law’. Further <strong>in</strong>digenous words<br />
<strong>in</strong> this field <strong>in</strong>clude ‘hum<strong>an</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g’, ‘m<strong>an</strong>; male’ (which may be <strong>an</strong> old lo<strong>an</strong>word), ‘wom<strong>an</strong>;<br />
female’, <strong>an</strong>d ‘wedd<strong>in</strong>g’.<br />
The sem<strong>an</strong>tic field that has by far the lowest proportion <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words, <strong>an</strong>d which<br />
has been disregarded <strong>in</strong> the above discussion, are the Function Words. There are only<br />
two lo<strong>an</strong>words here, one from Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> (‘without etc.’) <strong>an</strong>d one from Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong><br />
(‘noth<strong>in</strong>g’), i.e. none from Hungari<strong>an</strong> or <strong>an</strong>y other current contact l<strong>an</strong>guage. As a result,<br />
the various lo<strong>an</strong>word proportions <strong>in</strong> this field are very different from those <strong>in</strong> all other<br />
fields. Note that this LWT field only conta<strong>in</strong>s certa<strong>in</strong> k<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>of</strong> function words, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />
some <strong>of</strong> the less borrowable ones (e.g. demonstratives, basic adpositions, auxiliary<br />
verbs), <strong>an</strong>d should not be considered representative <strong>of</strong> function words <strong>in</strong> general: the<br />
word class Function Words has more th<strong>an</strong> three times as high proportion <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
(see Section 4.3).<br />
5. Integration <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
5.1. Phonological <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
The phoneme <strong>in</strong>ventory <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> is almost identical to that <strong>of</strong> the local dialect<br />
<strong>of</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong>, partly because <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> has both acquired <strong>an</strong>d lost a number <strong>of</strong><br />
phonemic dist<strong>in</strong>ctions due to contact with this contact l<strong>an</strong>guage (cf. Elšík 2007+). The<br />
only Hungari<strong>an</strong> phonemes to get phonologically adapted <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 23 <strong>of</strong> 65
are the front rounded vowels: the mid /ö/ [ø] <strong>an</strong>d /ő/ [ø:] <strong>an</strong>d the high /ü/ [y] <strong>an</strong>d /ű/<br />
[y:]. They are mostly replaced with their front unrounded counterparts, the mid /e/ [e ~<br />
æ] <strong>an</strong>d /é/ [æ:] <strong>an</strong>d the high /i/ [i] <strong>an</strong>d /í/ [i:], respectively, e.g. Hungari<strong>an</strong> csütörtök<br />
‘Thursday’ > <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> čitertek-o <strong>an</strong>d Hungari<strong>an</strong> kőműves ‘bricklayer’ > <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> kémíveš-i. One systematic exception occurs <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>of</strong><br />
polysyllabic Hungari<strong>an</strong> nouns whose base form ends <strong>in</strong> the long front rounded vowels.<br />
Here, Hungari<strong>an</strong> /ő/ <strong>an</strong>d /ű/ are replaced with the back rounded vowels /ó/ [o:] <strong>an</strong>d /ú/<br />
[u:], respectively, e.g. Hungari<strong>an</strong> kereskedő ‘merch<strong>an</strong>t’ > <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> kereškedó <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> kesztyű ‘glove’ > <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> kesťú(-va). However, when these nouns are<br />
parts <strong>of</strong> compounds <strong>in</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong>, the regular unround<strong>in</strong>g applies, e.g. Hungari<strong>an</strong> tüdő<br />
> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> tidó ‘lung’ but Hungari<strong>an</strong> tüdő+baj [lung+trouble] > <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> tidébaj-a ‘pulmonary tuberculosis’. Also regular is the phonological adaptation<br />
<strong>in</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>of</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> adjectivals <strong>an</strong>d monosyllabic nouns end<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the long front<br />
rounded vowels, e.g. Hungari<strong>an</strong> első ‘first’ > <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> éšé-n-o, Hungari<strong>an</strong><br />
könnyű ‘light; easy’ > <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> keňňí-n-o, Hungari<strong>an</strong> fő ‘head; chief’ > <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> fé ‘chief’. Note that there is no absolute constra<strong>in</strong>t on word-f<strong>in</strong>al /é/ or /í/ <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. 19<br />
Similarly, Slovak <strong>an</strong>d Czech phonemes that are absent from <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (<strong>an</strong>d<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong>) must or may get phonologically adapted, e.g. optional [x > kʰ] <strong>in</strong> Slovak<br />
východ ‘east’ > <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> víkhod-o, <strong>an</strong>d obligatory [r̭ > ʃ] <strong>in</strong> Czech pepř ><br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> pepš-o ‘black pepper’. M<strong>an</strong>y apparent <strong>in</strong>st<strong>an</strong>ces <strong>of</strong> phonological<br />
adaptation <strong>in</strong> current <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> fact reflect dialectal source forms, e.g.<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> čekíl-n-o ‘shallow’ < Hungari<strong>an</strong> dialectal csekíl, cf. st<strong>an</strong>dard sekély; or<br />
adoption <strong>of</strong> the source l<strong>an</strong>guage’s non-base stem vari<strong>an</strong>ts, e.g. <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> samar-a<br />
‘donkey’ < Hungari<strong>an</strong> szamar-, cf. the base stem szamár. In addition to these factors,<br />
post-contact phonological ch<strong>an</strong>ges must also be taken <strong>in</strong>to account when one tries to<br />
identify adaptation processes <strong>in</strong> older lo<strong>an</strong>words. For example, the Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong> word<br />
19 The regular unround<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the front rounded vowels is also a characteristic ethnolectal feature <strong>of</strong> some<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers’ Hungari<strong>an</strong>. Some <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>–Hungari<strong>an</strong> bil<strong>in</strong>guals thus lack the front<br />
rounded vowels <strong>in</strong> both <strong>of</strong> their primary l<strong>an</strong>guages, while for others unround<strong>in</strong>g is <strong>an</strong> L1-<strong>in</strong>ternal<br />
adaptation process. In addition, there is some <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g lexical <strong>an</strong>d sociol<strong>in</strong>guistic variation with regard<br />
to unround<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the latter group <strong>of</strong> speakers: certa<strong>in</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words tend to reta<strong>in</strong> the front rounded vowels,<br />
<strong>an</strong>d some speakers tend to reta<strong>in</strong> them <strong>in</strong> more lo<strong>an</strong>words th<strong>an</strong> others. It seems that the lack <strong>of</strong><br />
phonological adaptation <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> functions as a sociol<strong>in</strong>guistic marker <strong>of</strong> a k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> prestige<br />
associated with success <strong>in</strong> the non-<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> society.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 24 <strong>of</strong> 65
volja ‘will; mood’ was probably borrowed without <strong>an</strong>y phonological adaptation before it<br />
has ch<strong>an</strong>ged to present-day <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> vója ‘good mood’, due to regular Hungari<strong>an</strong>-<br />
<strong>in</strong>duced phonological developments. One <strong>of</strong> the few clear <strong>in</strong>st<strong>an</strong>ces <strong>of</strong> pre-Hungari<strong>an</strong><br />
phonological adaptation is the ch<strong>an</strong>ge [y > u] <strong>in</strong> Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> kurko ‘Sunday; week’, a<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>word <strong>of</strong> Medieval Greek kyrikó(n) ‘Lord’s (day); Sunday’ (Tzitzilis 2001: 327).<br />
5.2. Morphological <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
<strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> that are assigned the status <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>flected <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> word class (noun,<br />
verb, or adjective) are, as a rule, morphologically <strong>in</strong>tegrated <strong>in</strong>to <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>flectional patterns. However, there is a general division <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> between two major<br />
diachronic layers <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words with regard to their degree <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>tegration: lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
from pre-Greek contact l<strong>an</strong>guages are fully <strong>in</strong>tegrated <strong>an</strong>d <strong>in</strong>dist<strong>in</strong>guishable from<br />
<strong>in</strong>digenous words on morphological grounds, whereas lo<strong>an</strong>words from post-Greek<br />
contact l<strong>an</strong>guages are, or c<strong>an</strong> be reconstructed to have been <strong>in</strong> Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, overtly<br />
marked by various morphological me<strong>an</strong>s as lo<strong>an</strong>words. <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> from Greek, which<br />
is the source <strong>of</strong> most lo<strong>an</strong>word markers (e.g. Bakker 1997), are split between these two<br />
layers: some Hellenisms, presumably the early ones, are fully <strong>in</strong>tegrated, while others,<br />
presumably the later ones, are overtly marked as lo<strong>an</strong>words. This diachronic division is<br />
synchronically reflected as a morphologically encoded etymological compartmental-<br />
ization <strong>of</strong> the lexicon: older lo<strong>an</strong>words, together with <strong>in</strong>digenous words, have what I<br />
term oikoclitic morphology, while more recent lo<strong>an</strong>words have xenoclitic morphology.<br />
The dist<strong>in</strong>ction between oikoclisis <strong>an</strong>d xenoclisis, which c<strong>an</strong> be reconstructed for Early<br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, has undergone a variety <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong>alogical developments <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
dialects, affect<strong>in</strong>g not only <strong>in</strong>dividual lexemes, but also whole <strong>in</strong>flectional <strong>an</strong>d<br />
derivational classes (see Elšík & Matras 2006: 324–333 for <strong>an</strong> overview).<br />
The dist<strong>in</strong>ction between the full <strong>in</strong>tegration (oikoclisis) <strong>of</strong> earlier lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>an</strong>d<br />
marked <strong>in</strong>tegration (xenoclisis) <strong>of</strong> later lo<strong>an</strong>words is well reta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
noun <strong>in</strong>flection. Xenoclitic lo<strong>an</strong>words are characterized by borrowed nom<strong>in</strong>ative<br />
suffixes, mostly <strong>of</strong> Greek orig<strong>in</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d by <strong>an</strong>alogically reshaped oblique stem suffixes<br />
(see Elšík 2000, Matras 2002: 80–85 for details). For example, oikoclitic mascul<strong>in</strong>e<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>-nouns <strong>in</strong> -o (e.g. čár-o ‘bowl, dish’ from Dravidi<strong>an</strong>, ťirm-o ‘worm’ from Persi<strong>an</strong>,<br />
<strong>an</strong>d kurk-o ‘Sunday; week’ from Greek) take the <strong>in</strong>digenous nom<strong>in</strong>ative plural suffix -e<br />
<strong>an</strong>d the <strong>in</strong>digenous oblique s<strong>in</strong>gular suffix -es-, whereas xenoclitic mascul<strong>in</strong>e lo<strong>an</strong>-nouns<br />
<strong>in</strong> -o < Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> *-os (e.g. fór-o ‘town’ from Greek, prah-o ‘dust, powder’ from<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 25 <strong>of</strong> 65
South Slavic, világ-o ‘world’ from Hungari<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d pepš-o ‘black pepper’ from Czech)<br />
take the borrowed nom<strong>in</strong>ative plural suffix -i <strong>an</strong>d the reshaped oblique s<strong>in</strong>gular suffix<br />
-os-. Other <strong>in</strong>flectional classes show different markers, but the pr<strong>in</strong>ciple rema<strong>in</strong>s the<br />
same.<br />
Similarly, pre-Greek <strong>an</strong>d early Greek lo<strong>an</strong>-verbs show full morphological<br />
<strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>an</strong>d are structurally <strong>in</strong>dist<strong>in</strong>guishable from <strong>in</strong>digenous verbs. Post-Greek<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>-verbs, on the other h<strong>an</strong>d, are marked out by <strong>an</strong> overt (<strong>an</strong>d dedicated) adaptation<br />
marker, the Greek-orig<strong>in</strong> suffix -<strong>in</strong>-, which is added to <strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong>flectional stem <strong>of</strong> the source<br />
verb (e.g. vič-<strong>in</strong>- ‘to shout’ from Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong> vič-, dógoz-<strong>in</strong>- ‘to work’ from<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> dolgoz-), <strong>an</strong>d followed by regular <strong>in</strong>digenous <strong>in</strong>flections. The suffix, which<br />
is a pre-<strong>in</strong>flectional though non-derivational morpheme, was extracted from lexical<br />
borrow<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> Greek verbs with the present stem <strong>in</strong> -<strong>in</strong>-. Though none <strong>of</strong> these have<br />
been reta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, the suffix has been extended to those Greek lo<strong>an</strong>-verbs<br />
that orig<strong>in</strong>ally conta<strong>in</strong>ed a different suffix, e.g. rum-<strong>in</strong>- ‘to destroy, break, damage,<br />
spoil’ from Greek rim-az- ‘to ravage’. Dialect comparison suggests that the suffix -<strong>in</strong>-<br />
was orig<strong>in</strong>ally specialized for non-perfective adaptation <strong>of</strong> some tr<strong>an</strong>sitive lo<strong>an</strong>-verbs <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (Matras 2002: 130). In <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, however, it has developed <strong>in</strong>to a<br />
general, aspect- <strong>an</strong>d valency-neutral, verb-adaptation marker. 20 Nonce lo<strong>an</strong>-verbs from<br />
Slovak or Czech show a dist<strong>in</strong>ct pattern <strong>of</strong> morphological adaptation: their <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itive<br />
stems get adapted by the Hungari<strong>an</strong>-orig<strong>in</strong> adaptation suffix -ál-, 21 <strong>in</strong> addition to the<br />
regular adaptation suffix -<strong>in</strong>-, e.g. sledov-ál-<strong>in</strong>- ‘to observe, follow’ from Slovak/Czech<br />
sled-ov-a-.<br />
In adjectives, the dist<strong>in</strong>ction between xenoclitic <strong>an</strong>d oikoclitic <strong>in</strong>flection, which<br />
is attested <strong>in</strong> most <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialects <strong>an</strong>d reconstructable for Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (e.g. Boretzky<br />
& Igla 2004: 112–113), has been lost due to <strong>in</strong>ternal <strong>an</strong>alogical developments <strong>in</strong> all<br />
South Central dialects <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (cf. Elšík et al. 1999: 334,<br />
Elšík & Matras 2006: 329). All borrowed adjectives – i.e. not only those borrowed from<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>’s pre-Greek contact l<strong>an</strong>guages – now <strong>in</strong>flect exactly like <strong>in</strong>digenous<br />
adjectives <strong>an</strong>d employ the former oikoclitic <strong>in</strong>flectional suffixes. In lo<strong>an</strong>words from pre-<br />
20 The Greek-orig<strong>in</strong> suffix *-(V)s-, which appears to have been the marker <strong>of</strong> perfective adaptation <strong>of</strong> all<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>-verbs <strong>an</strong>d <strong>of</strong> non-perfective adaptation <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>t<strong>an</strong>sitive lo<strong>an</strong>-verbs (Matras 2002: 130), has acquired<br />
novel functions <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (cf. Elšík 2007+).<br />
21 Although Kenesei, Vago, <strong>an</strong>d Fenyvesi (1998: 357–358) describe the Hungari<strong>an</strong> suffix -ál- as a de-<br />
nom<strong>in</strong>al verb-deriv<strong>in</strong>g marker, their examples show that it is <strong>in</strong> fact a verb-adapt<strong>in</strong>g suffix, which is<br />
synchronically dist<strong>in</strong>ct from the de-nom<strong>in</strong>al verb-deriv<strong>in</strong>g suffix -(V)l.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 26 <strong>of</strong> 65
Hungari<strong>an</strong> contact l<strong>an</strong>guages, these <strong>in</strong>flections are suffixed directly to the <strong>in</strong>flectional<br />
stem <strong>of</strong> their source adjective, e.g. <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> žut-o ‘yellow’ from Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong><br />
žut. In lo<strong>an</strong>words from Hungari<strong>an</strong>, on the other h<strong>an</strong>d, the suffixation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>digenous<br />
<strong>in</strong>flections to the source adjective’s <strong>in</strong>flectional stem is mediated by overt <strong>an</strong>d dedicated<br />
adaptation suffixes <strong>of</strong> South Slavic orig<strong>in</strong>, e.g. <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> kík-n-o ‘blue’, keňňí-n-o<br />
‘light; easy’, or sirk-av-o ‘grey’ from Hungari<strong>an</strong> kék, könnyű, <strong>an</strong>d szürke. 22 Like the<br />
verb-adapt<strong>in</strong>g suffix, both <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> adjective-adapt<strong>in</strong>g suffixes, -n- <strong>an</strong>d -av-, are<br />
pre-<strong>in</strong>flectional morphemes, s<strong>in</strong>ce they are part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>flectional stem <strong>of</strong> borrowed<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> adjectives, though they are not derivational. While <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> lost<br />
the orig<strong>in</strong>al, Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, mark<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the orig<strong>in</strong>al (pre-Greek vs. post-Greek)<br />
etymological compartmentalization <strong>in</strong> adjectives at some po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> its history, it has<br />
developed a different k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> mark<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> a different (pre-Hungari<strong>an</strong> vs Hungari<strong>an</strong>)<br />
etymological compartmentalization.<br />
To sum up, there are three regular types <strong>of</strong> morphological <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>of</strong><br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>: a) adaptation through unmarked (oikoclitic) <strong>in</strong>flectional<br />
<strong>in</strong>tegration with pre-Greek <strong>an</strong>d early Greek nouns <strong>an</strong>d verbs <strong>an</strong>d with pre-Hungari<strong>an</strong><br />
adjectives; b) adaptation through marked (xenoclitic) <strong>in</strong>flectional <strong>in</strong>tegration with late<br />
Greek <strong>an</strong>d post-Greek nouns; c) (xenoclitic) adaptation by overt pre-<strong>in</strong>flectional suffixes<br />
with late Greek <strong>an</strong>d post-Greek verbs <strong>an</strong>d with Hungari<strong>an</strong> adjectives; lo<strong>an</strong>-verbs from<br />
Slovak <strong>an</strong>d Czech st<strong>an</strong>d out with<strong>in</strong> this latter type <strong>in</strong> tak<strong>in</strong>g a morphologically complex<br />
adaptation marker. Only a few lo<strong>an</strong>words deviate from these regular patterns. To cite<br />
just one example: The <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> noun kóbás-kiň-a ‘a k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> sausage’, from<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> kolbász, is adapted by me<strong>an</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the South Slavic suffix -kiň- plus the regular<br />
xenoclitic fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>flection <strong>of</strong> Greek orig<strong>in</strong>. This is quite curious s<strong>in</strong>ce the former<br />
suffix is otherwise only used to derive fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e counterparts to mascul<strong>in</strong>e nouns<br />
denot<strong>in</strong>g male hum<strong>an</strong>s (e.g. šógor-kiň-a ‘sister-<strong>in</strong>-law’ derived from šógor-i ‘brother-<strong>in</strong>-<br />
law’).<br />
22 The distribution <strong>of</strong> the two adjective-adapt<strong>in</strong>g suffixes is conditioned by the weight <strong>of</strong> the source<br />
adjective’s f<strong>in</strong>al syllable: Hungari<strong>an</strong> adjectives end<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a light syllable, i.e. <strong>in</strong> a short vowel, are adapted<br />
by the suffix -av-, which <strong>in</strong> addition triggers a deletion <strong>of</strong> the f<strong>in</strong>al vowel <strong>of</strong> the source form, whereas<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> adjectives end<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a heavy syllable, i.e. <strong>in</strong> a conson<strong>an</strong>t (cluster) or a long vowel, are adapted<br />
by the suffix -n-.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 27 <strong>of</strong> 65
5.3. Speakers’ attitudes to lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
Lexical variation between different generations <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers shows that<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words are enter<strong>in</strong>g the l<strong>an</strong>guage at a relatively fast rate. There are several obsolete<br />
pre-Hungari<strong>an</strong> lexical expressions, which are familiar to, but not regularly used by, the<br />
oldest speakers <strong>an</strong>d which have now been effectively replaced with lo<strong>an</strong>words from<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong>, e.g. kirivo (< Kurdish) vs náso ‘co-father-<strong>in</strong>-law’, or kárja d- (<strong>in</strong>digenous)<br />
vs lev<strong>in</strong>- ‘to shoot’. There are also quite a few pre-Hungari<strong>an</strong> words, which are<br />
regularly used by older speakers but are usually replaced with Hungari<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words by<br />
younger speakers, e.g. parašťú (< Greek) vs p<strong>in</strong>teko ‘Friday’, or tritóneste (< Greek +<br />
<strong>in</strong>digenous <strong>in</strong>flection) vs harmadikán ‘on the third (day <strong>of</strong> a month)’. My consult<strong>an</strong>ts<br />
never expressed <strong>an</strong>y regret or compunction over the loss <strong>of</strong> the “old” words <strong>in</strong> the<br />
several discussions <strong>of</strong> lexical replacement I have provoked or witnessed, <strong>an</strong>d the use <strong>of</strong><br />
nonce lo<strong>an</strong>words from Hungari<strong>an</strong> (or Slovak or Czech) by <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers does<br />
not appear to be stigmatized <strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong>y way or viewed as “corruption” <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>an</strong>guage.<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers <strong>of</strong>ten expla<strong>in</strong> their group’s self-designation as ungrike Roma<br />
‘Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms’ with reference to the presence <strong>of</strong> m<strong>an</strong>y “Hungari<strong>an</strong> words” <strong>in</strong> their<br />
variety <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>.<br />
However, the native concept <strong>of</strong> “Hungari<strong>an</strong> words,” i.e. words that are recognized<br />
by the <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>–Hungari<strong>an</strong> bil<strong>in</strong>guals as identical or similar <strong>in</strong> both <strong>of</strong> their<br />
primary l<strong>an</strong>guages, does not imply that their presence <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> is automatically<br />
ascribed to borrow<strong>in</strong>g from Hungari<strong>an</strong>. Several consult<strong>an</strong>ts have suggested to me that,<br />
alongside lo<strong>an</strong>words from Hungari<strong>an</strong>, there are also <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> words that are “simply<br />
similar” to Hungari<strong>an</strong> words without be<strong>in</strong>g lo<strong>an</strong>words. 23 This concept <strong>of</strong> ahistorical<br />
lexical similarity is likely to be connected to the native conceptualization <strong>of</strong> the group’s<br />
history: the Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> lack <strong>an</strong>y narrative <strong>of</strong> external orig<strong>in</strong>, claim<strong>in</strong>g<br />
that they have lived <strong>in</strong> the village “from times immemorial.” 24 Although the native<br />
criteria for dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g the two classes <strong>of</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong>isms (<strong>an</strong>d the extent to which this<br />
23 My consult<strong>an</strong>ts have never mentioned the third possibility, viz. that some lexical similarity between<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Hungari<strong>an</strong> c<strong>an</strong> be ascribed to borrow<strong>in</strong>g from the former l<strong>an</strong>guage <strong>in</strong>to the latter.<br />
Nevertheless, a few words do show this k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> history, e.g. <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> péro ‘<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> settlement’ ><br />
local Hungari<strong>an</strong> péró (> local Slovak pérov).<br />
24 The academic theory <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong> Indi<strong>an</strong> orig<strong>in</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Roms is known to some Roms from mass media <strong>an</strong>d<br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>(-related) publications, but it does not seem to enjoy <strong>an</strong>y special status among the various<br />
hypotheses proposed by outsiders (such as that the Roms orig<strong>in</strong>ate <strong>in</strong> Egypt, Palest<strong>in</strong>e, <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>a, or<br />
Spa<strong>in</strong>).<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 28 <strong>of</strong> 65
dist<strong>in</strong>ction is actually shared <strong>in</strong> the community) rema<strong>in</strong> to be <strong>in</strong>vestigated, it seems that<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words from Hungari<strong>an</strong> that are used across all generations <strong>an</strong>d regularly employed<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> discourse are not considered to be lo<strong>an</strong>words. Though they are referred to as<br />
“Hungari<strong>an</strong> words” <strong>in</strong> some contexts, <strong>in</strong> other contexts the speakers describe them as<br />
“proper <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> words.” This appropriation strategy is likely to be l<strong>in</strong>ked to the<br />
speakers’ toler<strong>an</strong>ce for lexical borrow<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
There are few productive onomasiological processes with<strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>an</strong>d the<br />
l<strong>an</strong>guage relies heavily on lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> creat<strong>in</strong>g new nam<strong>in</strong>g units, especially <strong>in</strong> nouns.<br />
Unlike some <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> varieties that employ <strong>in</strong>ternal word-formation processes to create a<br />
layer <strong>of</strong> secret vocabulary <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> sem<strong>an</strong>tic doma<strong>in</strong>s (cf. Matras 2002: 223), <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> does not seem to avoid lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> these doma<strong>in</strong>s. For example, while <strong>in</strong><br />
most <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> varieties the regular word for ‘policem<strong>an</strong>’ is a <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>-<strong>in</strong>ternal formation<br />
that is not comprehensible to outsiders, it is a lo<strong>an</strong>word from Hungari<strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>: čendéri < csendőr ‘gendarm’. 25<br />
6. Grammatical borrow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> has been affected by grammatical borrow<strong>in</strong>g to a great extent. 26 Due to<br />
space limitations I will only present a very brief summary here (see Elšík 2007+, for a<br />
more detailed overview). Several types <strong>of</strong> grammatical borrow<strong>in</strong>g are dist<strong>in</strong>guished<br />
below. First, <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> has borrowed various k<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>of</strong> contact l<strong>an</strong>guage function<br />
words, only some <strong>of</strong> which are represented <strong>in</strong> the LWT sample. Next, there are a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> borrowed affixes <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. (I dist<strong>in</strong>guish between affix copy<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
which is the direct tr<strong>an</strong>sfer <strong>of</strong> contact l<strong>an</strong>guage affixes without the mediation <strong>of</strong> lexical<br />
borrow<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>an</strong>d affix extraction, which consists <strong>in</strong> importation <strong>of</strong> contact l<strong>an</strong>guage<br />
affixes with<strong>in</strong> morphologically complex lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>an</strong>d their subsequent <strong>an</strong>alogical<br />
extension to bases that do not orig<strong>in</strong>ate <strong>in</strong> the source l<strong>an</strong>guage <strong>of</strong> the affixes.) F<strong>in</strong>ally,<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> frequently replicates source l<strong>an</strong>guage morphosyntactic patterns<br />
25 To my knowledge only two related nouns, the mascul<strong>in</strong>e čačuno <strong>an</strong>d fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e čačuni (derivations <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>in</strong>digenous adjective čáčo ‘true’), serve cryptolalic functions <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>: they may be used to<br />
refer to <strong>an</strong>y hum<strong>an</strong> referent <strong>in</strong> situations when the referent <strong>an</strong>d/or by-st<strong>an</strong>ders are not supposed to<br />
underst<strong>an</strong>d that the referent is be<strong>in</strong>g talked about.<br />
26 <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, together with Guar<strong>an</strong>i, shows the greatest extent <strong>of</strong> grammatical borrow<strong>in</strong>g among the<br />
25 l<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> a recent cross-l<strong>in</strong>guistic survey (Matras & Sakel, 2007+), exhibit<strong>in</strong>g some k<strong>in</strong>d<br />
<strong>of</strong> contact <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>in</strong> 31 out <strong>of</strong> 36 prom<strong>in</strong>ent structural doma<strong>in</strong>s (Matras, 2007+).<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 29 <strong>of</strong> 65
(constructions <strong>an</strong>d categories) without necessarily borrow<strong>in</strong>g the actual contact l<strong>an</strong>guage<br />
morphemes that encode these patterns. The follow<strong>in</strong>g summary only takes <strong>in</strong>to account<br />
the post-Indi<strong>an</strong> stages <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>an</strong>guage (see especially Emeneau 1956 <strong>an</strong>d Masica 1976<br />
for grammatical convergence <strong>in</strong> South Asia <strong>an</strong>d Friedm<strong>an</strong> 2000: 95–6 for a brief<br />
overview <strong>of</strong> traces <strong>of</strong> South Asi<strong>an</strong> areal features <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>):<br />
1. FUNCTION WORDS (selective): Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong>: possibility modal; Greek: several numerals <strong>an</strong>d<br />
qu<strong>an</strong>tifiers; address particle; temporal deictic particle; South Slavic: several qu<strong>an</strong>tifiers;<br />
distributive numeral particle; optative/permissive particle; negative scalar focus particle <strong>an</strong>d<br />
contrastive negative coord<strong>in</strong>ator; impersonal negative pronoun; Hungari<strong>an</strong>: most<br />
coord<strong>in</strong>ators; m<strong>an</strong>y adverbial subord<strong>in</strong>ators; factual complementizer; question particle <strong>in</strong><br />
embedded polar questions; generic obligation modal; several qu<strong>an</strong>tifiers <strong>an</strong>d degree words;<br />
numerous preverbs; a few marg<strong>in</strong>al postpositions; several adverbial deictics, <strong>in</strong>terrogatives,<br />
<strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ites <strong>an</strong>d reflexives; repetition, utter<strong>an</strong>ce-level <strong>an</strong>d phasal adverbs; focus particles;<br />
affirmative <strong>an</strong>swer particles; <strong>in</strong>terjections; fillers; sequential discourse markers; <strong>an</strong>d more.<br />
2. AFFIX COPYING: South Slavic: negative marker <strong>in</strong> negative pro-words; Hungari<strong>an</strong>:<br />
superlative marker; deictic-identity <strong>an</strong>d deictic-contrast markers <strong>in</strong> demonstratives; specific<br />
<strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite, free choice <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>an</strong>d universal-qu<strong>an</strong>tification markers <strong>in</strong> pro-words.<br />
3. AFFIX EXTRACTION: Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong>: comparative marker; Greek: nom<strong>in</strong>ative noun <strong>in</strong>flections;<br />
passive participle marker; lo<strong>an</strong>-verb adaptation marker; markers deriv<strong>in</strong>g relational<br />
adjectives, ethnic adverbs, <strong>an</strong>d ord<strong>in</strong>al numerals; South Slavic: lo<strong>an</strong>-adjective adaptation<br />
markers; markers deriv<strong>in</strong>g fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e hum<strong>an</strong> nouns <strong>an</strong>d attenuative adjectives; Hungari<strong>an</strong>:<br />
<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itive <strong>in</strong>flection; lo<strong>an</strong>-verb adaptation marker; markers productively deriv<strong>in</strong>g action <strong>an</strong>d<br />
artificial nouns, active de-verbal adjectives, de-nom<strong>in</strong>al <strong>an</strong>d causative verbs, <strong>an</strong>d similative<br />
adverbs; numerous unproductive derivational markers.<br />
4. MORPHOSYNTACTIC REPLICATION (selective): Middle Eastern: development <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>terrogative-based relativizers; reduction <strong>of</strong> non-f<strong>in</strong>ite constructions; remoteness mark<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><br />
verbs; Greek: development <strong>of</strong> a proclitic def<strong>in</strong>ite article; emergence <strong>of</strong> prepositions; shift to<br />
a basic predicate–object order; South Slavic: de-<strong>in</strong>terrogative structure <strong>of</strong> negative pro-<br />
words; negative agreement with negative pro-words; Hungari<strong>an</strong>: morphemic structure <strong>of</strong> the<br />
reciprocal pronoun; syntactic category <strong>of</strong> preverbs; morphological categories <strong>of</strong> associative<br />
plurals <strong>in</strong> nouns <strong>an</strong>d <strong>of</strong> frequentatives <strong>in</strong> verbs; elaboration <strong>of</strong> the morphological category <strong>of</strong><br />
orientation <strong>in</strong> spatial adpositions <strong>an</strong>d pro-words; reduction <strong>of</strong> gender <strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong>aphoric pronouns<br />
<strong>an</strong>d <strong>of</strong> fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e derivation <strong>in</strong> nouns denot<strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong>imals; retention <strong>an</strong>d productivity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
morphological categories <strong>of</strong> degree <strong>in</strong> adjectives <strong>an</strong>d <strong>of</strong> causatives <strong>in</strong> verbs; subjunctive-<br />
based <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itive construction; encod<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> various case relations; absence <strong>of</strong> case agreement<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 30 <strong>of</strong> 65
<strong>in</strong> numeral constructions; negation <strong>of</strong> phasal adverbs; ontological restrictions on relativizers;<br />
certa<strong>in</strong> pragmatic <strong>an</strong>d syntactic aspects <strong>of</strong> l<strong>in</strong>ear constituent order; <strong>an</strong>d more.<br />
The above summary shows that Hungari<strong>an</strong>, the primary current contact l<strong>an</strong>guage,<br />
is by far the most import<strong>an</strong>t source <strong>of</strong> all types <strong>of</strong> grammatical borrow<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. This is <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with the role <strong>of</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> as the most import<strong>an</strong>t source <strong>of</strong><br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. In contrast, Slovak <strong>an</strong>d Czech, the secondary current<br />
contact l<strong>an</strong>guages, appear not to have exerted <strong>an</strong>y grammatical <strong>in</strong>fluence on <strong>Selice</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. Of the past contact l<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, Greek st<strong>an</strong>ds out as a major<br />
source <strong>of</strong> grammatical borrow<strong>in</strong>gs, which contrasts with the relatively low proportion <strong>of</strong><br />
lexical Hellenisms. Recall, however, that the Greek lo<strong>an</strong>words that have been reta<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> represent only a small fraction <strong>of</strong> all the Greek lo<strong>an</strong>words that are<br />
reconstructable for Early <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> (see Section 3.5).<br />
7. Conclusions<br />
<strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, <strong>an</strong> <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guage <strong>of</strong> <strong>Slovakia</strong>, has been <strong>in</strong> contact with, <strong>an</strong>d has<br />
borrowed words from, a number <strong>of</strong> different l<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>in</strong> the course <strong>of</strong> its history.<br />
<strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> amount to almost two thirds <strong>of</strong> those lexicalized me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>gs that are sampled<br />
<strong>in</strong> the LWT project. <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>of</strong> all major word classes <strong>an</strong>d all sem<strong>an</strong>tic fields are<br />
well represented <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> lexicon, although certa<strong>in</strong> classes <strong>of</strong> function words<br />
are not borrowable <strong>an</strong>d although it seems that relatively more abstract sem<strong>an</strong>tic fields<br />
are less affected by lexical borrow<strong>in</strong>g. Nouns have a greater proportion <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
th<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>y other word class. <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> makes use <strong>of</strong> established <strong>an</strong>d productive<br />
morphological mech<strong>an</strong>isms to <strong>in</strong>tegrate <strong>in</strong>flected lo<strong>an</strong>words, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g nonce lo<strong>an</strong>words<br />
from current contact l<strong>an</strong>guages. Inst<strong>an</strong>ces <strong>of</strong> grammatical borrow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> both matter <strong>an</strong>d<br />
pattern are abund<strong>an</strong>t. Hungari<strong>an</strong>, a l<strong>an</strong>guage <strong>in</strong> which speakers <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> have<br />
now been bil<strong>in</strong>gual for m<strong>an</strong>y generations if not several centuries, is far <strong>an</strong>d away the<br />
most import<strong>an</strong>t source <strong>of</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>an</strong>d grammatical borrow<strong>in</strong>gs. In contrast, Slovak<br />
<strong>an</strong>d Czech, the other current contact l<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, contribute relatively<br />
few lo<strong>an</strong>words <strong>an</strong>d no grammar.<br />
The general sociol<strong>in</strong>guistic situation <strong>of</strong> all <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> varieties is highly favourable<br />
to contact-<strong>in</strong>duced developments, s<strong>in</strong>ce all adult <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> speakers are bil<strong>in</strong>gual <strong>in</strong> the<br />
relatively prestigious l<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>of</strong> the dom<strong>in</strong><strong>an</strong>t populations <strong>an</strong>d s<strong>in</strong>ce, at the same time,<br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic ideologies are toler<strong>an</strong>t <strong>of</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic borrow<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g borrow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong><br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 31 <strong>of</strong> 65
l<strong>in</strong>guistic matter, which is less difficult to monitor <strong>an</strong>d control. Nevertheless, there are<br />
differences between <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> varieties with regard to the degree <strong>of</strong> contact<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluences, which, <strong>in</strong> addition to length <strong>of</strong> contact with a particular contact l<strong>an</strong>guage,<br />
reflect differences <strong>in</strong> sociol<strong>in</strong>guistic situations. The long-settled Roms <strong>of</strong> Hungary <strong>an</strong>d<br />
the Hungari<strong>an</strong> regions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Slovakia</strong> have developed a strong orientation towards<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong> cultural models. While <strong>in</strong> most communities <strong>of</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms this cultural<br />
orientation has contributed to l<strong>an</strong>guage shift from <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> to Hungari<strong>an</strong>, <strong>in</strong> the few<br />
ext<strong>an</strong>t varieties <strong>of</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> Rumungro, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>, it has facilitated the<br />
propagation <strong>of</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong>-<strong>in</strong>duced l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>in</strong>novations <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. The use <strong>of</strong> nonce<br />
lo<strong>an</strong>words does not appear to be stigmatized <strong>in</strong> <strong>an</strong>y way <strong>an</strong>d the depart<strong>in</strong>g “old” words,<br />
whose gradual replacement is observable across generations, are not mourned by the<br />
speakers. The accept<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>an</strong>d <strong>in</strong>troduction <strong>of</strong> lexical Hungari<strong>an</strong>isms appears to be <strong>an</strong><br />
overt expression <strong>of</strong> the amalgamated ethnic identity <strong>of</strong> the Hungari<strong>an</strong> Roms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Selice</strong>.<br />
Acknowledgements<br />
I wish to th<strong>an</strong>k Ďusi, Ella, Béluši, Béluška, Adrika, <strong>an</strong>d especially Alena for their<br />
hospitability <strong>an</strong>d tremendous <strong>an</strong>d selfless help <strong>in</strong> my search for words <strong>an</strong>d structures <strong>of</strong><br />
their l<strong>an</strong>guage; Bodnár Zsu for help<strong>in</strong>g me enthusiastically with the identification <strong>of</strong><br />
dialectal Hungari<strong>an</strong> source words; Michael Beníšek for enlighten<strong>in</strong>g discussions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
non-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> element <strong>in</strong> <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong>, for provid<strong>in</strong>g me with some <strong>of</strong> the relev<strong>an</strong>t<br />
literature, <strong>an</strong>d for comments on a draft <strong>of</strong> the paper; Victor A. Friedm<strong>an</strong> for advice on<br />
several South Slavic issues; Peter Bakker <strong>an</strong>d Anthony P. Gr<strong>an</strong>t for detailed comments<br />
<strong>an</strong>d for corrections <strong>of</strong> my English. All responsibility for rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g mistakes is m<strong>in</strong>e. I<br />
would also like to th<strong>an</strong>k the Roma Culture Initiative <strong>of</strong> the Open Society Institute,<br />
Budapest, for their f<strong>in</strong><strong>an</strong>cial support <strong>of</strong> my research <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>in</strong> 2001–2002.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 32 <strong>of</strong> 65
References<br />
Ascoli, Graziadio I. 1865. Zigeunerisches. Halle: Heynem<strong>an</strong>n.<br />
Bakker, Peter. 1997. “Athematic morphology <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>: The borrow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> a borrow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
pattern.” Matras, Yaron, Peter Bakker & Hristo Kyuchukov (eds.) The typology<br />
<strong>an</strong>d dialectology <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. (= Current Issues <strong>in</strong> L<strong>in</strong>guistic Theory, 156.)<br />
Amsterdam: John Benjam<strong>in</strong>s. 1–21.<br />
Bakker, Peter. 1999. Review <strong>of</strong> Mānušs et al. 1997. Grazer L<strong>in</strong>guistische Studien 51:<br />
167–170.<br />
Beníšek, Michael. 2006. “Ke kořenům slova rom.” [On the roots <strong>of</strong> the word rom.]<br />
Rom<strong>an</strong>o dž<strong>an</strong>iben, jevend, 9–28.<br />
Berger, Herm<strong>an</strong>n. 1959. “Die Burušaski-Lehnwörter <strong>in</strong> der Zigeunersprache.” <strong>Indo</strong>-<br />
Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> Journal 3: 17–43.<br />
Boretzky, Norbert. 1995. “Armenisches im Zigeunerischen (<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> und Lomavren).”<br />
<strong>Indo</strong>germ<strong>an</strong>ische Forschungen 100: 137–155.<br />
Boretzky, Norbert. 1999. “Die Gliederung der Zentralen Dialekte und die Beziehungen<br />
zwischen Südlichen Zentralen Dialekten (Romungro) und Südbalk<strong>an</strong>ischen<br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>-Dialekten.” In: Halwachs & Menz 1999, 210–276.<br />
Boretzky, Norbert. 2003. Die Vlach-Dialekte des <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. Strukturen, Sprachgeschichte,<br />
Verw<strong>an</strong>dtschaftsverhältnisse, Dialektkarten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.<br />
Boretzky, Norbert. No date. Slavismen im <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> und der Fall beda/bedo. M<strong>an</strong>uscript.<br />
Boretzky, Norbert & Igla, Birgit. 1991. Morphologische Entlehnungen <strong>in</strong> den <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>-<br />
Dialekten. (= Arbeitspapiere des Projektes “Pr<strong>in</strong>zipien des Sprachw<strong>an</strong>dels”, 4.)<br />
Essen: Fachbereich Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften <strong>an</strong> der Universität Essen.<br />
Boretzky, Norbert & Igla, Birgit. 1994. Wörterbuch <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>–Deutsch–Englisch für den<br />
südosteuropäischen Raum: mit e<strong>in</strong>er Grammatik der Dialektvari<strong>an</strong>ten. Wiesbaden:<br />
Harrassowitz.<br />
Boretzky, Norbert & Igla, Birgit. 2004. Kommentierter Dialektatlas des <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>. Teil 1:<br />
Vergleich der Dialekte. Teil 2: Dialektkarten mit e<strong>in</strong>er CD Rom. Wiesbaden:<br />
Harrassowitz Verlag 2004.<br />
Briggs, George Weston. 1953. The Doms <strong>an</strong>d their near relations. Mysore: Wesley<br />
Press.<br />
Buck, Carl Darl<strong>in</strong>g. 1949. A dictionary <strong>of</strong> selected synonyms <strong>in</strong> the pr<strong>in</strong>cipal <strong>Indo</strong>-<br />
Europe<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages. Chicago: University <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 33 <strong>of</strong> 65
Burrow, Thomas. 1945. “Some Dravidi<strong>an</strong> words <strong>in</strong> S<strong>an</strong>skrit.” Tr<strong>an</strong>sactions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Philological Society, 79–120.<br />
Burrow, Thomas. 1946. “<strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> S<strong>an</strong>skrit.” Tr<strong>an</strong>sactions <strong>of</strong> the Philological<br />
Society, 1–30.<br />
Burrow, Thomas. 1947–1948. “Dravidi<strong>an</strong> studies VII: Further Dravidi<strong>an</strong> words <strong>in</strong><br />
S<strong>an</strong>skrit.” Bullet<strong>in</strong> <strong>of</strong> the School <strong>of</strong> Oriental <strong>an</strong>d Afric<strong>an</strong> Studies 12, 365–396.<br />
Burrow, Thomas & Emeneau, Murray B. 1960, 2 1984. A Dravidi<strong>an</strong> etymological<br />
dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.<br />
Elšík, Viktor. 2000. “<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> nom<strong>in</strong>al paradigms: Their structure, diversity, <strong>an</strong>d<br />
development.” In: Elšík, Viktor & Matras, Yaron (eds.) Grammatical relations <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>: The noun phrase. Amsterdam: Benjam<strong>in</strong>s. 9–30.<br />
Elšík, Viktor. 2003. “Interdialect contact <strong>of</strong> Czech (<strong>an</strong>d Slovak) <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> varieties.”<br />
International Journal <strong>of</strong> the Sociology <strong>of</strong> L<strong>an</strong>guage 162: 41–62.<br />
Elšík, Viktor. 2006. Review <strong>of</strong> Boretzky & Igla 2004. <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> Studies 5, 16: 105–111.<br />
Elšík, Viktor. 2007+. “Grammatical borrow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Hungari<strong>an</strong> Rumungro.” In: Matras &<br />
Sakel, 2007+.<br />
Elšík, Viktor, Hübschm<strong>an</strong>nová, Milena & Šebková, H<strong>an</strong>a. 1999. “The Southern Central<br />
(ahi-imperfect) <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialects <strong>of</strong> <strong>Slovakia</strong> <strong>an</strong>d northern Hungary.” In: Halwachs<br />
& Menz 1999, 277–390.<br />
Elšík, Viktor & Matras, Yaron. 2006. Markedness <strong>an</strong>d l<strong>an</strong>guage ch<strong>an</strong>ge: the <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
sample. Berl<strong>in</strong>: Mouton de Gruyter.<br />
Emeneau, Murray B. 1956. “India as a l<strong>in</strong>guistic area.” L<strong>an</strong>guage 32: 3–16.<br />
Fraser, Angus. 1992. The Gypsies. Oxford: Blackwell.<br />
Friedm<strong>an</strong>, Victor A. 1986. “<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> te <strong>in</strong> a Balk<strong>an</strong> context.” Językowe studia<br />
bałk<strong>an</strong>istyczne 1: 39–48.<br />
Friedm<strong>an</strong>, Victor A. 1988. “A Caucasi<strong>an</strong> lo<strong>an</strong>word <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>.” In: DeSilva, Cara,<br />
Grumet, Jo<strong>an</strong>ne & Nemeth, David J. (eds.) Papers from the eighth <strong>an</strong>d n<strong>in</strong>th<br />
<strong>an</strong>nual meet<strong>in</strong>gs, Gypsy Lore Society, North Americ<strong>an</strong> Chapter. New York:<br />
Gypsy Lore Society, North Americ<strong>an</strong> Chapter. 18–20.<br />
Friedm<strong>an</strong>, Victor A. 1989. “Toward def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the position <strong>of</strong> Turkisms <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>.” In:<br />
Balić, Sait et al. (eds.) Jezik i kultura Roma. Sarajevo: Institut za proučav<strong>an</strong>je<br />
nacionalnih odnosa. 251–267.<br />
Friedm<strong>an</strong>, Victor A. 2000. “<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>in</strong> the Balk<strong>an</strong> L<strong>in</strong>guistic League.” In: Tzitzilis,<br />
Christos & Symeonidés, Kh. (eds.) Valk<strong>an</strong>ikē glōssologia: sygxronia kai<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 34 <strong>of</strong> 65
diaxronia. Balk<strong>an</strong>l<strong>in</strong>guistik: Synchronie und Diachronie. Thessaloniki: University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Thessaloniki. 95–105.<br />
Gr<strong>an</strong>t, Anthony P. 2003. “Where East meets West: observations on a list <strong>of</strong> Greek lo<strong>an</strong>s<br />
<strong>of</strong> Europe<strong>an</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>.” In: Gr<strong>an</strong>t, Anthony P. (ed.) Papers <strong>in</strong> contact l<strong>in</strong>guistics.<br />
(Interface, Bradford Studies <strong>in</strong> L<strong>an</strong>guage, Culture <strong>an</strong>d Society, 6). Bradford:<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> L<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>an</strong>d Europe<strong>an</strong> Studies, University <strong>of</strong> Bradford. 27–69.<br />
Halwachs, Dieter W. & Menz, Flori<strong>an</strong> (eds.) 1999. Die Sprache der Roma. Perspektiven<br />
der <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>-Forschung <strong>in</strong> Österreich im <strong>in</strong>terdiszipl<strong>in</strong>ären und <strong>in</strong>ternationalen<br />
Kontext. Klagenfurt: Drava.<br />
H<strong>an</strong>cock, I<strong>an</strong>. 1987. “Il contributo armeno alla l<strong>in</strong>gua rom<strong>an</strong>i.” Lacio Drom 23: 4–10.<br />
H<strong>an</strong>cock, I<strong>an</strong>. 1995. “On the migration <strong>an</strong>d affiliation <strong>of</strong> the Ḍōmba: Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> words <strong>in</strong><br />
Rom, Lom <strong>an</strong>d Dom Gypsy.” In: Matras, Yaron (ed.) <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>in</strong> contact: the<br />
history <strong>an</strong>d sociology <strong>of</strong> a l<strong>an</strong>guage. Amsterdam: Benjam<strong>in</strong>s. 25–51.<br />
Kenesei, István, Robert M. Vago, <strong>an</strong>d Anna Fenyvesi. 1998. Hungari<strong>an</strong>. London:<br />
Routledge.<br />
Kostov, Kiril. 1996. Review <strong>of</strong> Boretzky & Igla 1994. Grazer L<strong>in</strong>guistische Studien 46:<br />
131–142.<br />
Kuiper, Fr<strong>an</strong>ciscus B. J. 1948. Proto-Munda words <strong>in</strong> S<strong>an</strong>skrit. Amsterdam: N. V.<br />
Noord-Holl<strong>an</strong>dsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.<br />
Kuiper, Fr<strong>an</strong>ciscus B. J. 1991. Ary<strong>an</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the Rigveda. Amsterdam: N. V. Noord-<br />
Holl<strong>an</strong>dsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.<br />
Lubotsky, Alex<strong>an</strong>der M. 2001. “The <strong>Indo</strong>-Ir<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong> substratum.” In: Carpel<strong>an</strong>, Chr.,<br />
Parpola, A. & Koskikallio, P. (eds.) Early contacts between Uralic <strong>an</strong>d <strong>Indo</strong>-<br />
Europe<strong>an</strong>: l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>an</strong>d archaeological considerations. Papers presented at <strong>an</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>ternational symposium held at the Tvärm<strong>in</strong>ne Research Station <strong>of</strong> the University<br />
<strong>of</strong> Hels<strong>in</strong>ki 8-10 J<strong>an</strong>uary 1999. (Mémoires de la Société F<strong>in</strong>no-ougrienne 242.)<br />
Hels<strong>in</strong>ki 2001. 301–317.<br />
Mānuš, Léksa. 1994. “Le etimologie di venti vocaboli z<strong>in</strong>gari.” Lacio Drom 30: 26–34.<br />
Mānušs, Leksa, Neil<strong>an</strong>ds, Jānis & Rudevičs, Kārlis. 1997. Čigānu–latviešu–<strong>an</strong>gļu<br />
etimoloģiskā vārdnīca un latviešu–čigānu vārdnīca. [Gypsy–Latvi<strong>an</strong>–English<br />
etymological dictionary <strong>an</strong>d Latvi<strong>an</strong>–Gypsy dictionary.] Rīgā: Zvaigzne ABC.<br />
Masica, Col<strong>in</strong> P. 1976. Def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a l<strong>in</strong>guistic area: South Asia. Chicago: University <strong>of</strong><br />
Chicago Press.<br />
Masica, Col<strong>in</strong> P. 1979. “Ary<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d non-Ary<strong>an</strong> elements <strong>in</strong> North Indi<strong>an</strong> agriculture.”<br />
In: Deshp<strong>an</strong>de, Madhav M. & Hook, P. E. (eds.) Ary<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Non-Ary<strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong> India.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 35 <strong>of</strong> 65
Ann Arbor: Center for South <strong>an</strong>d Southeast Asi<strong>an</strong> Studies, University <strong>of</strong><br />
Michig<strong>an</strong>. 55–151.<br />
Matras, Yaron. 1994. “Structural Balk<strong>an</strong>isms <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>.” In: Reiter, Norbert, H<strong>in</strong>richs,<br />
Uwe & v<strong>an</strong> Leeuwen-Turnovcová, Jiř<strong>in</strong>a (eds.) Sprachlicher St<strong>an</strong>dard und<br />
Subst<strong>an</strong>dard <strong>in</strong> Südosteuropa und Osteuropa. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 195–210.<br />
Matras, Yaron. 1995. “Verb evidentials <strong>an</strong>d their discourse function <strong>in</strong> Vlach <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
narratives.” In: Matras, Yaron (ed.) <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>in</strong> contact: The history, structure <strong>an</strong>d<br />
sociology <strong>of</strong> a l<strong>an</strong>guage. Amsterdam: Benjam<strong>in</strong>s. 95–123.<br />
Matras, Yaron. 1996. Review <strong>of</strong> Boretzky & Igla 1994. Zeitschrift für Balk<strong>an</strong>ologie 32:<br />
214–224.<br />
Matras, Yaron. 1999. “Joh<strong>an</strong>n Rüdiger <strong>an</strong>d the study <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>in</strong> eighteenth-century<br />
Germ<strong>an</strong>y.” Journal <strong>of</strong> the Gypsy Lore Society, Fifth Series 9: 89–106.<br />
Matras, Yaron. 2002. <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong>: a l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>in</strong>troduction. Cambridge: Cambridge<br />
University Press.<br />
Matras, Yaron. 2005. “The classification <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> dialects: a geographic–historical<br />
perspective.” In: Schrammel, Barbara, Halwachs, Dieter W. & Ambrosch, Gerd<br />
(eds.) General <strong>an</strong>d applied <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistics: Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs from the 6th<br />
International Conference on <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> L<strong>in</strong>guistics. Munich: L<strong>in</strong>com Europa. 7–22.<br />
Matras, Yaron. 2007+. “The borrowability <strong>of</strong> structural categories.” In: Matras &<br />
Sakel, 2007+.<br />
Matras, Yaron & Sakel, Je<strong>an</strong>ette (eds.) 2007+. Grammatical borrow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> cross-<br />
l<strong>in</strong>guistic perspective. Berl<strong>in</strong>: Mouton de Gruyter. In press.<br />
Mayrh<strong>of</strong>er, M<strong>an</strong>fred. 1986–2001. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Alt<strong>in</strong>doarischen. 3<br />
volumes. Heidelberg: Carl W<strong>in</strong>ter.<br />
Mess<strong>in</strong>g, Gordon M. 1988. A glossary <strong>of</strong> Greek Rom<strong>an</strong>y: as spoken <strong>in</strong> Agia Varvara<br />
(Athens). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.<br />
Mijatović, Boško. 2006. Tobacco <strong>an</strong>d the Serbi<strong>an</strong> state <strong>in</strong> the 19th century. Center for<br />
Liberal-Democratic Studies 2006. http://www.clds.org.yu/newsite/Duv<strong>an</strong>-e.pdf<br />
Miklosich, Fr<strong>an</strong>z. 1872–1880. Über die Mundarten und W<strong>an</strong>derungen der Zigeuner<br />
Europas. Volumes I-XII. Wien: Karl Gerold’s son.<br />
Pobożniak, Tadeusz. 1964. Grammar <strong>of</strong> the Lovari dialect. (= Prace komisji<br />
orientalistycznej, 3.) Kraków: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe.<br />
Pott, August F. 1844–1845 [1964]. Die Zigeuner <strong>in</strong> Europa und Asien. Ethnographisch-<br />
l<strong>in</strong>guistische Untersuchung vornehmlich ihrer Herkunft und Sprache. Halle:<br />
Heynem<strong>an</strong>n. [Leipzig: Edition Leipzig].<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 36 <strong>of</strong> 65
Sampson, John. 1926 [1968] The dialect <strong>of</strong> the Gypsies <strong>of</strong> Wales, be<strong>in</strong>g the older form<br />
<strong>of</strong> British <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> preserved <strong>in</strong> the speech <strong>of</strong> the cl<strong>an</strong> <strong>of</strong> Abram Wood. Oxford:<br />
Clarendon Press.<br />
Soravia, Giulio. 1988. “Di alcune etimologie z<strong>in</strong>gariche.” Archivio glottologico itali<strong>an</strong>o,<br />
73: 3–11.<br />
Soulis, George. 1961. “The Gypsies <strong>in</strong> the Byz<strong>an</strong>t<strong>in</strong>e Empire <strong>an</strong>d the Balk<strong>an</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Late Middle Ages.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 15: 142–165.<br />
Southworth, Fr<strong>an</strong>kl<strong>in</strong> C. 2005a. L<strong>in</strong>guistic archaeology <strong>of</strong> South Asia. London:<br />
Routledge-Curzon.<br />
Southworth, Fr<strong>an</strong>kl<strong>in</strong> C. 2005b. “Prehistoric implications <strong>of</strong> the Dravidi<strong>an</strong> element <strong>in</strong><br />
the NIA lexicon, with special reference to Marathi.” International Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Dravidi<strong>an</strong> L<strong>in</strong>guistics 34(1): 17–28.<br />
Tálos, Endre. 1999. “Etymologica Z<strong>in</strong>garica.” Acta L<strong>in</strong>guistica Hungarica 46: 215–268.<br />
Toropov, Vadim G. 2004. Istorija i fol’klor krymskix cyg<strong>an</strong>. [The history <strong>an</strong>d folklore<br />
<strong>of</strong> Crime<strong>an</strong> Gypsies.] Moskva: Rossijskij naučno-issledovatel’skij <strong>in</strong>stitut<br />
kul’turnogo i prirodnogo nasledija im. D. S. Lixačeva.<br />
Turner, Ralph L. 1924. traš- ‘to frighten’. Journal <strong>of</strong> the Gypsy Lore Society, Third<br />
series 3: 38–43.<br />
Turner, Ralph L. 1926. “The position <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong>.” Journal <strong>of</strong> the Gypsy<br />
Lore Society, Third series 5: 145–189.<br />
Turner, Ralph L. 1962–1966. A comparative dictionary <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages.<br />
Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
Tzitzilis, Christos. 2001. “Mittelgriechische Lehnwörter im Rom<strong>an</strong>es.” In: Igla, Birgit<br />
& Stolz, Thomas (eds.) “Was ich noch sagen wollte...” A Multil<strong>in</strong>gual Festschrift<br />
for Norbert Boretzky on the Occasion <strong>of</strong> His 65th Birthday (Sprachtypologie und<br />
Universalienforschung, Supplements, Studia typologica 2). Berl<strong>in</strong>: Akademie<br />
Verlag. 328–340.<br />
Valtonen, Pertti. 1972. Suomen mustalaiskielen etymolog<strong>in</strong>en s<strong>an</strong>akirja. [An<br />
etymological dictionary <strong>of</strong> the F<strong>in</strong>nish Gypsy l<strong>an</strong>guage.] Hels<strong>in</strong>ki: Suomalaisen<br />
kirjallisuuden seura.<br />
Vekerdi, József. 1981. “On the social prehistory <strong>of</strong> the Gypsies.” Acta Orientalia<br />
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 23: 243–254.<br />
Vekerdi, József. 1983. A magyarországi cigány nyelvjárások szótára. [A dictionary <strong>of</strong><br />
Gypsy dialects <strong>of</strong> Hungary.] Pécs: J<strong>an</strong>us P<strong>an</strong>nonius Tudományegyetem<br />
T<strong>an</strong>árképző Kara.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 37 <strong>of</strong> 65
Vekerdi, József; with the assist<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>of</strong> Zsuzsa Várnai. 2000. A comparative dictionary<br />
<strong>of</strong> Gypsy dialects <strong>in</strong> Hungary. Gypsy–English–Hungari<strong>an</strong> dictionary with English<br />
to Gypsy <strong>an</strong>d Hungari<strong>an</strong> to Gypsy word lists. Budapest: Terebess Publications.<br />
[revised edition <strong>of</strong> Vekerdi 1983]<br />
Witzel, Michael. 1999a. “Substrate l<strong>an</strong>guages <strong>in</strong> Old <strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> (Rgvedic, Middle <strong>an</strong>d<br />
Late Vedic).” Electronic Journal <strong>of</strong> Vedic Studies 5: 1–67.<br />
Witzel, Michael. 1999b. “Early sources for South Asi<strong>an</strong> substrate l<strong>an</strong>guages.” Mother<br />
Tongue, Special Issue, October 1999, 1–70.<br />
Witzel, Michael. 1999c. “Ary<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Non-Ary<strong>an</strong> names <strong>in</strong> Vedic India. Data for the<br />
l<strong>in</strong>guistic situation, c. 1900–500 B.C.” In: Bronkhorst, Joh<strong>an</strong>nes & Deshp<strong>an</strong>de,<br />
Madhav M. (eds.) Ary<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Non-Ary<strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong> South Asia: Evidence, <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
<strong>an</strong>d ideology. Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> the Michig<strong>an</strong>-Laus<strong>an</strong>ne International Sem<strong>in</strong>ar on<br />
Ary<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Non-Ary<strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong> South Asia, University <strong>of</strong> Michig<strong>an</strong>, Ann Arbor, 25-27<br />
October 1996. (= Harvard Oriental Series, Opera M<strong>in</strong>ora, 3.) Cambridge:<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> S<strong>an</strong>skrit <strong>an</strong>d Indi<strong>an</strong> Studies, Harvard University. 337–404.<br />
Witzel, Michael. 2003. “L<strong>in</strong>guistic evidence for cultural exch<strong>an</strong>ge <strong>in</strong> prehistoric western<br />
Central Asia”. S<strong>in</strong>o-Platonic Papers 129: 1–70.<br />
Wolf, Siegmund A. 1960 [1987, 1993]. Großes Wörterbuch der Zigeunersprache.<br />
M<strong>an</strong>nheim [Hamburg: Buske].<br />
Woolner, Alfred C. 1915. “Studies <strong>in</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> philology I: Personal pronouns”. Journal<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Gypsy Lore Society, Second series, 9: 119–128.<br />
Woolner, Alfred C. 1928. “Asoka <strong>an</strong>d the Gypsies.” Journal <strong>of</strong> the Gypsy Lore Society,<br />
Third Series 7: 108–111.<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 38 <strong>of</strong> 65
Appendix<br />
Non-<strong>Indo</strong>-Europe<strong>an</strong> Central Asi<strong>an</strong><br />
búko ‘liver’<br />
sú ‘needle’<br />
rašaj ‘priest’<br />
Non-<strong>Indo</strong>-Ary<strong>an</strong> Indi<strong>an</strong><br />
* (Para/Proto-)Munda; † Dravidi<strong>an</strong><br />
čik *† ‘mud’<br />
čhá * ‘<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> young m<strong>an</strong> or boy; son; child’<br />
rom * ‘Rom; married <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> m<strong>an</strong>; husb<strong>an</strong>d’<br />
pro * ‘foot, leg’<br />
b<strong>an</strong>go * ‘crooked, bent, curved; lame’<br />
čáro † ‘bowl, dish’<br />
čiken *† ‘grease, fat’<br />
ťiral † ‘curd, quark, cottage cheese’<br />
urďen † ‘to put on, dress’<br />
harno * ‘short’<br />
párno * ‘white’<br />
kálo † ‘black’<br />
Persi<strong>an</strong><br />
* may also be Kurdish<br />
véš ‘woods, forest’<br />
ťirmo ‘worm’<br />
zár ‘body hair, pubic hair; <strong>an</strong>imal hair’<br />
dumo ‘back’<br />
<strong>an</strong>gušť ‘f<strong>in</strong>ger, toe’<br />
pór ‘feather’<br />
rezd<strong>an</strong> ‘to shiver, tremble’<br />
koro * ‘bl<strong>in</strong>d’<br />
kúči ‘cup, mug’<br />
mol ‘w<strong>in</strong>e’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 39 <strong>of</strong> 65
<strong>an</strong>grusti ‘r<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
resen ‘to arrive; reach; fit <strong>in</strong>to’<br />
kamen ‘to wish; w<strong>an</strong>t; love, like; owe’<br />
bast ‘luck, good luck’<br />
zij<strong>an</strong>d ‘damage’<br />
bi ‘without; <strong>in</strong>stead <strong>of</strong>; except for; because <strong>of</strong>’<br />
patavo ‘foot-rag, foot cloth’<br />
hurdo ‘t<strong>in</strong>y, petite, m<strong>in</strong>ute, small’<br />
Kurdish<br />
tover ‘axe’<br />
Ossetic<br />
* may also be Persi<strong>an</strong><br />
holev ‘trousers’<br />
verda * ‘cart, wagon, carriage; pram, buggy’<br />
Armeni<strong>an</strong><br />
* may also be Persi<strong>an</strong><br />
gra ‘horse’<br />
čekat * ‘forehead’<br />
burňik ‘palm <strong>of</strong> the h<strong>an</strong>d; h<strong>an</strong>dful’<br />
ťirhaj ‘boot, high boot’<br />
dudum ‘pumpk<strong>in</strong>, squash, gourd’<br />
kotor ‘piece’<br />
čoháni ‘witch’<br />
čoháno ‘sorcerer, wizard’<br />
humer * ‘boiled or baked dough; pastry; noodle(s)’<br />
Greek<br />
papu ‘gr<strong>an</strong>dfather’<br />
papiň ‘goose’<br />
cipa ‘sk<strong>in</strong>; hide; leather; bark; coat, peel, shell’<br />
kokal ‘bone’<br />
cimbla ‘eyebrow’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 40 <strong>of</strong> 65
zumi ‘soup’<br />
sapuňi ‘soap’<br />
kafidi ‘table’<br />
kop<strong>an</strong>a ‘trough’<br />
ir<strong>in</strong>en ‘to turn’<br />
drom ‘way; road; path; journey’<br />
rum<strong>in</strong>en ‘to destroy, break; damage; spoil’<br />
efta ‘seven’<br />
<strong>of</strong>to ‘eight’<br />
eňňa ‘n<strong>in</strong>e’<br />
trito ‘third’<br />
táha ‘tomorrow’<br />
kurko ‘Sunday; week’<br />
parašťú ‘Friday’<br />
hóli ‘<strong>an</strong>ger’<br />
trom<strong>an</strong> ‘to dare, venture’<br />
fóro ‘town’<br />
kopaj ‘walk<strong>in</strong>g stick; club’<br />
luluďi ‘flower’<br />
amoňi ‘<strong>an</strong>vil’<br />
South Slavic<br />
* must be Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong> ; † c<strong>an</strong>not be Serbo-Croati<strong>an</strong><br />
praho ‘dust; powder’<br />
nebo ‘sky; heaven’<br />
baba ‘gr<strong>an</strong>dmother’<br />
gerkáňi ‘larynx, throat’<br />
sléž<strong>in</strong>ka ‘spleen’<br />
péťa * ‘oven’<br />
žila ‘ve<strong>in</strong>, artery; s<strong>in</strong>ew, tendon’<br />
mlíno ‘mill’<br />
klúčo ‘key’<br />
vodro † ‘bed’<br />
perníca ‘pillow’<br />
járko ‘ditch’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 41 <strong>of</strong> 65
obo ‘maize/corn’<br />
duh<strong>an</strong>o * ‘tobacco’<br />
kl<strong>in</strong>co ‘nail’<br />
caklo * ‘glass; bottle’<br />
plasta ‘c<strong>an</strong>vas, awn<strong>in</strong>g, sheet; sail’<br />
uze * ‘beside, by, next to’<br />
dugo * ‘long’<br />
cilo * ‘whole; all’<br />
dosta ‘enough’<br />
sobota † ‘Saturday’<br />
zeleno ‘green’<br />
žuto * ‘yellow’<br />
gizdavo ‘proud, haughty’<br />
erďavo * ‘bad; evil; wrong’<br />
vič<strong>in</strong>en * ‘to shout, cry out’<br />
prim<strong>in</strong>en ‘to promise’<br />
mol<strong>in</strong>en ‘to pray’<br />
ništa * ‘noth<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
tres<strong>in</strong>en ‘to shake’<br />
smírom * ‘<strong>in</strong> peace’<br />
Hungari<strong>an</strong><br />
* may also be Slovak <strong>an</strong>d/or Czech; † may also be South Slavic<br />
világo ‘world’<br />
heďo ‘mounta<strong>in</strong>’<br />
dombo ‘hill’<br />
igeňeššígo ‘directness; rectitude; pla<strong>in</strong>’<br />
sigeto ‘isl<strong>an</strong>d’<br />
parto ‘coast, shore’<br />
barl<strong>an</strong>go ‘cave’<br />
tengeri ‘sea’<br />
ňugotno ‘calm’<br />
zavarošno ‘rough (about sea); obscure; confused, mad, <strong>in</strong>s<strong>an</strong>e’<br />
habo ‘foam’<br />
lagúna * ‘lagoon’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 42 <strong>of</strong> 65
hullámo ‘wave’<br />
fojó ‘river’<br />
patako ‘brook, creek, stream’<br />
forgó ‘whirpool’<br />
močára ‘swamp’<br />
ešíši ‘waterfall’<br />
kevečo ‘small stone; gravel’<br />
feldrengíši ‘earthquake’<br />
hódačka ‘moon, little moon’<br />
čillaga ‘star’<br />
villámo ‘(flash <strong>of</strong>) lightn<strong>in</strong>g; bolt <strong>of</strong> lightn<strong>in</strong>g, thunderbolt’<br />
villámláši ‘lightn<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
zengíši ‘thunder’<br />
zivatalo ‘storm’<br />
sivárváňi ‘ra<strong>in</strong>bow’<br />
világšágo ‘light’<br />
világoššágo ‘light’<br />
šetítšígo ‘darkness’<br />
árňíko ‘shade, shadow’<br />
dero ‘hoarfrost; dew’<br />
levegó(va) ‘air’<br />
felhó(va) ‘cloud’<br />
kedo ‘fog’<br />
jego ‘ice’<br />
faď<strong>in</strong>en ‘to freeze’<br />
lánga ‘flame’<br />
fišto ‘smoke’<br />
gézo ‘steam’<br />
hamu ‘ash’<br />
izgó(va) ‘embers’<br />
ďújtó ‘match, lighter’<br />
tata ‘father!’ [address form]<br />
mama ‘mother!’ [address form]<br />
sileji ‘parents’<br />
teštvírno ‘sibl<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 43 <strong>of</strong> 65
kettéšno ‘tw<strong>in</strong>’<br />
onoka ‘gr<strong>an</strong>dson; gr<strong>an</strong>dchild’ [mascul<strong>in</strong>e]<br />
onoka ‘gr<strong>an</strong>ddaughter’ [fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e]<br />
onokateštvírno ‘cous<strong>in</strong> (male or generic)’<br />
onokateštvíro ‘male cous<strong>in</strong>’<br />
apóši ‘father-<strong>in</strong>-law’<br />
aňóša ‘mother-<strong>in</strong>-law’<br />
aňóškiňa ‘mother-<strong>in</strong>-law’<br />
vejo ‘son-<strong>in</strong>-law’<br />
meňečke ‘daughter-<strong>in</strong>-law’<br />
šógori ‘brother-<strong>in</strong>-law; sibl<strong>in</strong>g-<strong>in</strong>-law’<br />
árvasto ‘orph<strong>an</strong>’<br />
özvedni ‘widow’<br />
özvedno ‘widower’<br />
rokoňi ‘relative, k<strong>in</strong>’<br />
rokoňšágo ‘relatives, k<strong>in</strong>ship’<br />
čaládo ‘family; child, immediate descend<strong>an</strong>t’<br />
áloto ‘<strong>an</strong>imal; livestock’<br />
legeló ‘pasture’<br />
ištálló(va) ‘stable, stall’<br />
bika ‘bull; ox’<br />
borjúko ‘calf’<br />
báránka ‘lamb, small sheep’<br />
k<strong>an</strong>o ‘male pig; wild boar’<br />
kečke ‘goat (generic)’<br />
čéderi ‘stallion’<br />
čikó ‘foal, colt’<br />
samara ‘donkey’<br />
kokaši ‘cock, rooster’<br />
čibóka ‘chicken’<br />
káča ‘duck’<br />
ficko ‘nest’<br />
bérmadara ‘bat’<br />
papagáji * ‘parrot’<br />
varjú(ka) ‘crow’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 44 <strong>of</strong> 65
galamba ‘pigeon, dove’<br />
čuviko ‘owl’<br />
mačka *† ‘cat’<br />
pociko ‘mouse’<br />
patkáňi ‘rat, sewer-rat’<br />
haja ‘scale’<br />
čiga ‘(cockle-)shell’<br />
delfíno * ‘dolph<strong>in</strong>’<br />
farkaši ‘wolf’<br />
orosláňa ‘lion’<br />
medve ‘bear’<br />
róka ‘fox’<br />
sarvaši ‘deer’<br />
majmo ‘monkey’<br />
elef<strong>an</strong>to ‘eleph<strong>an</strong>t’<br />
púpošteve ‘camel’<br />
bugari ‘beetle; <strong>in</strong>sect’<br />
švábo * ‘cockroach’<br />
h<strong>an</strong>ďa ‘<strong>an</strong>t’<br />
póko ‘spider’<br />
pókháló ‘spider web’<br />
míhečke ‘bee’<br />
fullánka ‘bee, wasp or a similar st<strong>in</strong>gy <strong>in</strong>sect’<br />
daráža ‘wasp’<br />
súňoga ‘mosquito’<br />
kullánča ‘tick’<br />
kijó ‘snake’<br />
mókuši ‘squirrel’<br />
jaguári * ‘jaguar’<br />
lepke ‘butterfly’<br />
čigabiga ‘snail’<br />
bíka ‘frog’<br />
ďíko ‘lizard’<br />
tekňéšbíka ‘turtle’<br />
tešto ‘body’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 45 <strong>of</strong> 65
hajsálo ‘hair’<br />
sakálla ‘beard’<br />
korpa ‘d<strong>an</strong>druff’<br />
era ‘ve<strong>in</strong>, artery’<br />
ódalbordo ‘rib’<br />
sarva ‘horn’<br />
farka ‘tail’<br />
hátger<strong>in</strong>ci ‘sp<strong>in</strong>e’<br />
halántíko ‘temples’<br />
kopoňa ‘skull’<br />
állarckapča ‘jaw’<br />
álla ‘ch<strong>in</strong>’<br />
semeldeko ‘eyebrow; eyelid’<br />
sempilla ‘eyelash’<br />
pillogat<strong>in</strong>en ‘to bl<strong>in</strong>k, tw<strong>in</strong>kle’<br />
kač<strong>in</strong>gat<strong>in</strong>en ‘to w<strong>in</strong>k, give a sign by bl<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g; flirt’<br />
turňa ‘nostril’<br />
íňa ‘gums’<br />
ňak(a)čiga ‘nape <strong>of</strong> the neck; neck vertebra’<br />
vállo ‘shoulder’<br />
lapocka ‘shoulderblade’<br />
keňeka ‘elbow’<br />
čukló ‘wrist’<br />
combo ‘thigh; haunch’<br />
térďa ‘knee’<br />
boka ‘<strong>an</strong>kle’<br />
šarka ‘corner; edge; heel (body part)’<br />
ňoma ‘footpr<strong>in</strong>t’<br />
lípíši ‘step, footstep; footpr<strong>in</strong>t’<br />
sárňa ‘w<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
mello ‘chest, bosom; bust’<br />
puppa ‘navel’<br />
tidó ‘lung’<br />
májo ‘liver’<br />
vešó ‘kidney’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 46 <strong>of</strong> 65
ďomra ‘stomach’<br />
derko ‘waist’<br />
forgó ‘hip (bone)’<br />
míha ‘womb’<br />
lílegz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to breathe’<br />
ášítoz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to yawn’<br />
čukl<strong>in</strong>en ‘to hiccough’<br />
keheg<strong>in</strong>en ‘to cough’<br />
trisk<strong>in</strong>en ‘to sneeze’<br />
iddzad<strong>in</strong>en ‘to perspire’<br />
ňáloz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to wet with saliva, lick’<br />
horšog<strong>in</strong>en ‘to snore’<br />
fird<strong>in</strong>en ‘to bathe’<br />
íleto ‘life’<br />
ďilkol<strong>in</strong>en ‘to murder’<br />
dego ‘carcass’<br />
temet<strong>in</strong>en ‘to bury’<br />
šíra ‘grave’<br />
ďengavo ‘weak’<br />
lázo ‘fever’<br />
nátha * ‘cold’<br />
šebo ‘wound, sore’<br />
belešeto ‘accident; <strong>in</strong>jury’<br />
kapar<strong>in</strong>en ‘to scratch’<br />
hólaga ‘blister’<br />
himló ‘small-pox, pox, pock, boil’<br />
geňňo ‘pus’<br />
jelo ‘bodily mark’, esp. ‘scar’<br />
orvoši ‘physici<strong>an</strong>; doctor (degree)’<br />
orvoššágo ‘medic<strong>in</strong>e’<br />
ďócceri ‘medic<strong>in</strong>e’<br />
mirgo ‘poison’<br />
fárotno ‘tired’<br />
pihel<strong>in</strong>en ‘to rest’<br />
luštavo ‘lazy’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 47 <strong>of</strong> 65
kopasno ‘bald’<br />
bénavo ‘lame’<br />
nímavo ‘mute’<br />
íretno ‘ripe’<br />
pošvatno ‘rotten’<br />
rág<strong>in</strong>en ‘to chew, champ, gnaw, munch, nibble’<br />
žuvačkáz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to chew chew<strong>in</strong>g gum’<br />
kemence ‘oven’<br />
šerpeňó(va) ‘stew-p<strong>an</strong>, shallow pot’<br />
kávéfézó ‘kettle for mak<strong>in</strong>g c<strong>of</strong>fee’<br />
palac<strong>in</strong>kašító ‘p<strong>an</strong>’<br />
táňíri ‘plate’<br />
koršó ‘jug, pitcher’<br />
vella ‘fork; pitchfork’<br />
fogó ‘tongs’<br />
reggeli ‘breakfast’<br />
ebído ‘lunch’<br />
vačora ‘supper’<br />
sitál<strong>in</strong>en ‘to sieve, sift’<br />
pucol<strong>in</strong>en ‘to scrape’<br />
kever<strong>in</strong>en ‘to mix, stir’<br />
kovási ‘dough’<br />
dagast<strong>in</strong>en ‘to knead’<br />
ďúr<strong>in</strong>en ‘to knead or roll (dough); crush’<br />
él<strong>in</strong>en ‘to gr<strong>in</strong>d’<br />
kóbáskiňa ‘(a k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong>) sausage’<br />
zéčígo ‘vegetables’<br />
babo ‘be<strong>an</strong>’<br />
krumpja ‘potato’<br />
ďiméčo ‘fruit’<br />
čomó ‘knot; knob; bundle, bunch, cluster; batch’<br />
figa ‘fig’<br />
sélló(va) ‘grapel; v<strong>in</strong>e’<br />
oliva * ‘olive’<br />
olaji ‘oil’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 48 <strong>of</strong> 65
paprika * ‘paprika, pepper’<br />
míza ‘honey’<br />
cukro * ‘sugar’<br />
šajto ‘cheese’<br />
italo ‘dr<strong>in</strong>k’, esp. ‘alcoholic dr<strong>in</strong>k’<br />
šero ‘beer’<br />
tojáši ‘egg’<br />
sabó ‘tailor’<br />
varó ‘tailor’<br />
aňago ‘material, matter, stuff; cloth’<br />
ďapjúšno aňago ‘wool’<br />
ďapjúaňago ‘wool’<br />
vásoňi ‘l<strong>in</strong>en; c<strong>an</strong>vas’<br />
pamuko † ‘cotton’<br />
šejmo ‘silk’<br />
bunda ‘fur; fur coat’<br />
ket<strong>in</strong>en ‘to b<strong>in</strong>d; plait, brad; knit; weave’<br />
cérna ‘thread’<br />
fešt<strong>in</strong>en ‘to dye; pa<strong>in</strong>t; put on make up’<br />
palášťa ‘cloak’<br />
keppeňi ‘ra<strong>in</strong>coat, mac<strong>in</strong>tosh’<br />
kabáto * ‘coat’<br />
gallíra ‘collar’<br />
zokni ‘sock’<br />
fusekla * ‘sock’<br />
harišňa ‘stock<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
topánka * ‘shoe’<br />
čuka ‘pike; shoe’<br />
šusteri ‘shoemaker’<br />
kalapa ‘hat’<br />
šipka ‘cap’<br />
síja ‘belt; strap’<br />
kesťú(va) ‘glove’<br />
fáťuli ‘veil’<br />
gombo ‘button’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 49 <strong>of</strong> 65
gembešťú ‘p<strong>in</strong>’<br />
díso ‘ornament, adornment’<br />
kerpelece ‘bracelet’<br />
lánco ‘cha<strong>in</strong>; necklace’<br />
ďenďo ‘pearl; bead’<br />
f<strong>in</strong>gó(va) ‘earr<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
čelenka * ‘headb<strong>an</strong>d’<br />
tetováláši ‘tattoo’<br />
žepkendó ‘h<strong>an</strong>dkerchief’<br />
ronďo ‘rag’<br />
teríkezó ‘towel’<br />
kefe ‘brush’<br />
konťo ‘plait, braid’<br />
beretva ‘razor’<br />
kenéče ‘o<strong>in</strong>tment’<br />
ďíkeri ‘mirror’<br />
guňhó(va) ‘hut, sh<strong>an</strong>ty, hovel’<br />
šátori ‘large tent used for celebrations etc.’<br />
udvara ‘yard, court’<br />
koňha ‘kitchen’<br />
soba † ‘room (esp. <strong>in</strong>habited by people)’<br />
hejšígo ‘room’<br />
kaputa ‘gate’<br />
ajtóragastó ‘doorpost’<br />
záro ‘lock’<br />
reteza ‘latch, door-bolt’<br />
kall<strong>an</strong>ťú ‘(a k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong>) latch’<br />
lakato ‘padlock’<br />
bloka ‘w<strong>in</strong>dow’<br />
paló ‘floor’<br />
emeleto ‘floor, storey’<br />
falo ‘wall’<br />
k<strong>an</strong>dalló ‘(decorative) fireplace <strong>in</strong> a room’<br />
kájha ‘stove’<br />
šporhelto * ‘stove, (kitchen-)r<strong>an</strong>ge’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 50 <strong>of</strong> 65
kímíňi ‘chimney’<br />
létra ‘ladder’<br />
pokróca ‘bl<strong>an</strong>ket’<br />
takaró ‘bl<strong>an</strong>ket’<br />
paplaňi ‘quilt, duvet’<br />
larisa * ‘(a k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong>) bl<strong>an</strong>ket’<br />
séko ‘chair’<br />
lampa * ‘lamp’<br />
lampáši ‘l<strong>an</strong>tern, lamppost, streetlamp, st<strong>an</strong>dard’<br />
villalampa ‘torch’<br />
ďerťa ‘c<strong>an</strong>dle’<br />
póco ‘shelf’<br />
regáli * ‘shelf with compartments’<br />
serha ‘ro<strong>of</strong>’<br />
gerenda ‘beam’<br />
oslopo ‘post or pole’<br />
deska ‘board’<br />
kémíveši ‘mason, bricklayer’<br />
tégla ‘brick’<br />
válka * ‘adobe’<br />
tábori * ‘camp ‘<br />
h<strong>in</strong>ta ‘sw<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
hallóh<strong>in</strong>ta ‘hammock’<br />
gazda *† ‘farmer; householder, goodm<strong>an</strong>; boss’<br />
kerítíši ‘fence’<br />
sánt<strong>in</strong>en ‘to plough/plow’<br />
kapál<strong>in</strong>en ‘to dig’<br />
ášó ‘spade’<br />
lapáta ‘shovel’<br />
kapa ‘hoe’<br />
gereble ‘rake’<br />
mago ‘seed; gra<strong>in</strong>; stone (<strong>of</strong> a fruit)’<br />
kasál<strong>in</strong>en ‘to mow’<br />
šalló(va) ‘sickle’<br />
kasa ‘scythe’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 51 <strong>of</strong> 65
aratáši ‘harvest’<br />
gabona ‘gra<strong>in</strong>, corn (barley, oats etc.)’<br />
semo ‘gra<strong>in</strong>, corn, kernel’<br />
búza ‘wheat’<br />
arpa ‘barley’<br />
rožo † ‘rye’<br />
zabo ‘oats’<br />
riža *† ‘rice’<br />
mezó(va) ‘grass’<br />
sína ‘hay’<br />
ítet<strong>in</strong>en ‘to pl<strong>an</strong>t’<br />
tevo ‘root’<br />
ága ‘br<strong>an</strong>ch’<br />
fentó(va) ‘lopp<strong>in</strong>gs’<br />
levele ‘leaf’<br />
virága ‘flower’<br />
telďo ‘oak’<br />
biko ‘beech’<br />
makko ‘acorn’<br />
cigarettáz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to smoke cigarettes’<br />
pípa ‘pipe’<br />
tékó(va) ‘tree stump’<br />
terčo ‘tree stem, tree trunk’<br />
eňva ‘sap (from a tree)’<br />
citroňi ‘lemon’<br />
nar<strong>an</strong>či ‘or<strong>an</strong>ge’<br />
b<strong>an</strong>áno * ‘b<strong>an</strong><strong>an</strong>a’<br />
bambusi * ‘bamboo’<br />
cukornádo ‘sugar c<strong>an</strong>e’<br />
čóváňi ‘nettle’<br />
dógoz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to work’<br />
hajt<strong>in</strong>en ‘to fold’<br />
ňír<strong>in</strong>en ‘to cut with scissors or a similar <strong>in</strong>strument’<br />
alló(va) ‘scissors or shears’<br />
dergel<strong>in</strong>en ‘to rub’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 52 <strong>of</strong> 65
akast<strong>in</strong>en ‘to h<strong>an</strong>g up’<br />
ňom<strong>in</strong>en ‘to push; press; squeeze’<br />
ňomkod<strong>in</strong>en ‘to squeeze’<br />
ňúz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to flay; squeeze (fruits)’<br />
šepr<strong>in</strong>en ‘to sweep’<br />
šeprú(va) ‘broom’<br />
sersámo ‘m<strong>an</strong>ual workers’ tool’<br />
áčo ‘carpenter’<br />
ípít<strong>in</strong>en ‘to build’<br />
fúr<strong>in</strong>en ‘to bore’<br />
víš<strong>in</strong>en ‘to hollow out’<br />
fírísi ‘saw’<br />
kalapáči ‘hammer’<br />
ragastó ‘glue’<br />
kováči * ‘blacksmith’<br />
ílló ‘<strong>an</strong>vil’<br />
araňo ‘gold’<br />
ezišto ‘silver’<br />
ólmo ‘lead’<br />
plého ‘t<strong>in</strong>plate’<br />
aďago ‘clay’<br />
košara ‘basket’<br />
séňego ‘carpet; mat; rug’<br />
cekkeri ‘netbag’<br />
leďezó ‘f<strong>an</strong>’<br />
leďez<strong>in</strong>en ‘to f<strong>an</strong>’<br />
farag<strong>in</strong>en ‘to carve’<br />
sobrási ‘sculptor’<br />
sobro ‘statue’<br />
víšó ‘chisel’<br />
feštíko ‘pa<strong>in</strong>t; make up’<br />
íko ‘chock, peg’<br />
čipesi ‘clothes-peg, clothes-p<strong>in</strong>’<br />
éllešító ‘sharpener’, esp. ‘whetstone’<br />
mozdít<strong>in</strong>en ‘to move [sth.]’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 53 <strong>of</strong> 65
mozgat<strong>in</strong>en ‘to move [sth.] back <strong>an</strong>d forth’<br />
mozg<strong>in</strong>en ‘to move’<br />
čomagol<strong>in</strong>en ‘to pack, wrap’<br />
šodr<strong>in</strong>en ‘to sp<strong>in</strong>, tw<strong>in</strong>e, twist; roll (dough)’<br />
gurít<strong>in</strong>en ‘to roll, wheel, bowl’<br />
čavar<strong>in</strong>en ‘to twist; screw’<br />
emel<strong>in</strong>en ‘to lift; raise; pick up’<br />
čepeg<strong>in</strong>en ‘to drip’<br />
buk<strong>in</strong>en ‘to s<strong>in</strong>k; plunge, dive’<br />
ús<strong>in</strong>en ‘to swim’<br />
freččel<strong>in</strong>en ‘to splash, squirt’<br />
repil<strong>in</strong>en ‘to fly’<br />
ťús<strong>in</strong>en ‘to crawl; slide, slip’<br />
más<strong>in</strong>en ‘to climb; crawl’<br />
terbekel<strong>in</strong>en ‘to kneel’<br />
gugol<strong>in</strong>en ‘to crouch’<br />
šétál<strong>in</strong>en ‘to walk, take a walk, go for a walk’<br />
tíl<strong>in</strong>en ‘to disappear’<br />
ňomoz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to trace, trail; prospect for; enquire; pursue’<br />
leš<strong>in</strong>en ‘to watch for, lurk for, spy upon; prospect for’<br />
vezet<strong>in</strong>en ‘to drive; lead, rule, control’<br />
def<strong>in</strong>en ‘to toss; poke at, thrust <strong>in</strong>, push <strong>in</strong>to [so.]’<br />
tol<strong>in</strong>en ‘to push, to jostle; to wheel’<br />
orságúto ‘road’<br />
hída ‘bridge’<br />
koči ‘carriage, wagon, cart’<br />
kereko ‘wheel’<br />
tengó(va) ‘axle’<br />
sánkó(va) ‘sledge/sled’<br />
hajó(va) ‘ship’<br />
čónako ‘boat’<br />
ladiko ‘boat’<br />
kompo ‘ferry, raft, scow, pram’<br />
evedzó ‘oar, paddle’<br />
evedz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to row, paddle’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 54 <strong>of</strong> 65
hajókórmáňi ‘rudder’<br />
kórmáňi ‘rudder; steer<strong>in</strong>g wheel’<br />
mačka ‘<strong>an</strong>chor’<br />
ment<strong>in</strong>en ‘to save, rescue’<br />
šemmiššít<strong>in</strong>en ‘to destroy’<br />
kódúši ‘beggar’<br />
žugorotno ‘st<strong>in</strong>gy, avaricious; greedy’<br />
kéčeno ‘lo<strong>an</strong>; debt’<br />
sámla ‘bill’<br />
sázollíko ‘percent; taxes’<br />
fizetíši ‘payment; salary, wages’<br />
órabíro ‘hourly wages’<br />
kerešked<strong>in</strong>en ‘to trade, merch<strong>an</strong>dise; deal with; do bus<strong>in</strong>ess’<br />
k<strong>of</strong>áz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to work at the market; barter; traffic, pr<strong>of</strong>iteer’<br />
šeftel<strong>in</strong>en ‘to trade, traffic’<br />
kereškedó ‘merch<strong>an</strong>t’<br />
k<strong>of</strong>a ‘market wom<strong>an</strong>, market person, stallkeeper; trafficker, chafferer’<br />
pijarci ‘market’<br />
bóta ‘shop, store’<br />
izleto ‘shop, store’<br />
írtíko ‘value; price’<br />
óčóno ‘cheap’<br />
maradíko ‘rest, rema<strong>in</strong>s’<br />
ost<strong>in</strong>en ‘to separate; apportion; divide’<br />
alačonno ‘low’<br />
špicco ‘top, peak; tips<strong>in</strong>ess’<br />
feneke ‘bottom’<br />
vígo ‘end’<br />
heďešno ‘mounta<strong>in</strong>ous; po<strong>in</strong>ted’<br />
sílo ‘edge’<br />
kezepo ‘middle, centre’<br />
jobno ‘right’<br />
balogno ‘left’<br />
balgačno ‘left; left-h<strong>an</strong>ded’<br />
kezé ‘near’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 55 <strong>of</strong> 65
mír<strong>in</strong>en ‘to measure; weight’<br />
síkno ‘narrow’<br />
mílno ‘deep’<br />
čekílno ‘shallow’<br />
lapošno ‘flat’<br />
igeňešno ‘straight, direct’<br />
horga ‘fishhook, fish<strong>in</strong>g rod, <strong>an</strong>gle; hook’<br />
keresto ‘cross’<br />
kocka ‘die; cube; square; check’<br />
gembelígno ‘round’<br />
kero ‘circle’<br />
guló ‘ball’<br />
číko ‘strip; l<strong>in</strong>e; accent, haček (diacritic sign)’<br />
luka ‘hole, slot’<br />
hašollóno ‘similar’<br />
váltostat<strong>in</strong>en ‘to ch<strong>an</strong>ge [sth.]’<br />
változ<strong>in</strong>en ‘to ch<strong>an</strong>ge’<br />
nulla ‘zero’<br />
ezeri ‘thous<strong>an</strong>d’<br />
čepo ‘few, little; a few, a little (bit)’<br />
šoro ‘row; queue; turn; crowd’<br />
čak ‘only’<br />
éšéno ‘first’<br />
utóšóno ‘last’<br />
páro ‘pair, couple’<br />
korá(n) ‘early, early <strong>in</strong> the morn<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
hajnábo ‘at dawn, early <strong>in</strong> the morn<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
kíšén ‘late’<br />
m<strong>in</strong>ďár ‘right away, presently, immediately’<br />
rekten ‘right away, <strong>in</strong> no time, immediately’<br />
folva ‘right away, <strong>in</strong> no time, immediately’<br />
ďorš<strong>an</strong> ‘fast’<br />
šijet<strong>in</strong>en ‘to hurry’<br />
kíšl<strong>in</strong>en ‘to be late’<br />
kezd<strong>in</strong>en ‘to beg<strong>in</strong>’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 56 <strong>of</strong> 65
kezdíši ‘beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
vígz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to f<strong>in</strong>ish’<br />
kísno ‘ready’<br />
m<strong>in</strong>dig ‘always’<br />
furt * ‘always, all the time; still’<br />
álondóv<strong>an</strong> ‘all the time, <strong>in</strong>cess<strong>an</strong>tly, unceas<strong>in</strong>gly’<br />
ďakr<strong>an</strong> ‘<strong>of</strong>ten’<br />
valamikor ‘sometimes; some time ago, <strong>in</strong> the old times’<br />
níha ‘sometimes, at times, now <strong>an</strong>d then’<br />
šoká ‘long, for a long time’<br />
šoha ‘never’<br />
újra ‘aga<strong>in</strong>, <strong>an</strong>ew’<br />
újbú ‘aga<strong>in</strong>, <strong>an</strong>ew’<br />
veradáši ‘dawn’<br />
hajnalo ‘dawn, daybreak’<br />
dílo ‘midday, noon’<br />
óra ‘clock, watch; o’clock; hour’<br />
hetfeno ‘Monday’<br />
keddo ‘Tuesday’<br />
serda ‘Wednesday’<br />
čiterteko ‘Thursday’<br />
p<strong>in</strong>teko ‘Friday’<br />
tavasi ‘spr<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
éso ‘autumn/fall’<br />
sagul<strong>in</strong>en ‘to scent, sniff’<br />
sagošno ‘hav<strong>in</strong>g a particular (neutral or good) smell’<br />
izl<strong>in</strong>en ‘to taste, have a particular taste’<br />
h<strong>an</strong>go ‘sound; voice’<br />
lárma ‘noise’<br />
h<strong>an</strong>gošno ‘loud, noisy’<br />
čendešno ‘quiet’<br />
világít<strong>in</strong>en ‘to give light; sh<strong>in</strong>e’<br />
raďog<strong>in</strong>en ‘to sh<strong>in</strong>e, glare, glitter’<br />
síňo ‘colour’<br />
világošno ‘light; bright; clear, obvious’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 57 <strong>of</strong> 65
šetítno ‘dark’<br />
kíkno ‘blue’<br />
číp<strong>in</strong>en ‘to p<strong>in</strong>ch; st<strong>in</strong>g; be hot (about food)’<br />
durvavo ‘rough, tough’<br />
šímavo ‘smooth’<br />
élešno ‘sharp’<br />
tompavo ‘blunt’<br />
keňňíno ‘light (<strong>in</strong> weight); easy’<br />
nedvešno ‘wet’<br />
foróno ‘hot, boil<strong>in</strong>g hot’<br />
ráncošno ‘wr<strong>in</strong>kled’<br />
lelko ‘soul, spirit’<br />
čudákoz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to be surprised, wonder, marvel’<br />
bámul<strong>in</strong>en ‘to gape, goggle; marvel’<br />
ňalábol<strong>in</strong>en ‘to embrace’<br />
elel<strong>in</strong>en ‘to embrace’<br />
somorúšágo ‘sadness, grief, gloom’<br />
gondo ‘concern, worry, <strong>an</strong>xiety’<br />
šajnál<strong>in</strong>en ‘to regret, be sorry; pity’<br />
šajnálato ‘regret, pity’<br />
jajgat<strong>in</strong>en ‘to wail, mo<strong>an</strong>, gro<strong>an</strong>’<br />
idegeššígo ‘nervosity; <strong>an</strong>ger’<br />
íriččígo ‘envy’<br />
kíňešno ‘proud; delicate, squeamish’<br />
bátorno ‘brave, courageous; bold’<br />
válost<strong>in</strong>en ‘to choose, select; elect’<br />
hazud<strong>in</strong>en ‘to lie’<br />
bečapáši ‘deceit, fraud, bluff’<br />
bočájt<strong>in</strong>en ‘to forgive’<br />
hiba ‘mistake, error; defect; fault; blame’<br />
íhéhótl<strong>an</strong>no ‘<strong>in</strong>satiable, sateless, greedy (concern<strong>in</strong>g food)’<br />
gondúkoz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to th<strong>in</strong>k, reflect’<br />
gondol<strong>in</strong>en ‘to th<strong>in</strong>k, be <strong>of</strong> op<strong>in</strong>ion’<br />
talál<strong>in</strong>en ‘to hit the mark, strike home, nick; guess’<br />
utánoz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to imitate’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 58 <strong>of</strong> 65
gondulato ‘thought; idea’<br />
okošno ‘wise, prudent’<br />
butavo ‘stupid, silly’<br />
bambavo ‘dumb, dull, booby, simple-m<strong>in</strong>ded’<br />
t<strong>an</strong>uló ‘pupil’<br />
dijáko ‘pupil, student’<br />
iškoláši ‘school-age child, pupil’<br />
t<strong>an</strong>ító ‘teacher’<br />
iškola ‘school’<br />
emlékez<strong>in</strong>en ‘to remember, be able to retrieve from one’s memory’<br />
titkošno ‘secret’<br />
bistošno ‘certa<strong>in</strong>, sure, safe, dependable’<br />
maďaráz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to expla<strong>in</strong>’<br />
sándíko ‘<strong>in</strong>tention’<br />
kítelkedíši ‘dubitation, scepticism; doubt’<br />
kítelked<strong>in</strong>en ‘to doubt; suspect’<br />
sikšígo ‘need’<br />
próbál<strong>in</strong>en ‘to try; try out, test; practice’<br />
prób<strong>in</strong>en ‘to try; try out, test; practice’<br />
mer(t) ‘because’<br />
mivel ‘s<strong>in</strong>ce, because, as’<br />
vaď ‘or’<br />
há(t) ‘well; yes’<br />
šušog<strong>in</strong>en ‘to whisper’<br />
morg<strong>in</strong>en ‘to mumble’<br />
fiťel<strong>in</strong>en ‘to whistle’<br />
ordít<strong>in</strong>en ‘to yell, squeal, shriek, scream, shout’<br />
šikójt<strong>in</strong>en ‘to scream, shriek, yell’<br />
ňerít<strong>in</strong>en ‘to neigh, wh<strong>in</strong>ny; shriek’<br />
hebeg<strong>in</strong>en ‘to stutter, stammer’<br />
halgat<strong>in</strong>en ‘to be silent’<br />
felel<strong>in</strong>en ‘to <strong>an</strong>swer’<br />
tagad<strong>in</strong>en ‘to deny’<br />
tilt<strong>in</strong>en ‘to forbid’<br />
nevez<strong>in</strong>en ‘to call, term; name; designate’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 59 <strong>of</strong> 65
jelent<strong>in</strong>en ‘to <strong>an</strong>nounce, report; me<strong>an</strong>, have the me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g’<br />
ír<strong>in</strong>en ‘to write’<br />
papíri * ‘paper; document; driver’s licence’<br />
tollo ‘pen’<br />
keňvo ‘book’<br />
veršíró ‘poet’<br />
šípa ‘woodw<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong>strument’<br />
dobo ‘drum’<br />
trombita ‘trumpet’<br />
čergó(va) ‘rattle’<br />
čerg<strong>in</strong>en ‘to rattle’<br />
álmo ‘state, country’<br />
hazájo ‘native country’<br />
határi ‘border, boundary, frontier’<br />
nípo ‘people; nation’<br />
fajta ‘cl<strong>an</strong>’<br />
vajda * ‘<strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> chiefta<strong>in</strong>’<br />
fé ‘leader, boss, chief’<br />
vezetó ‘leader; driver’<br />
bota ‘walk<strong>in</strong>g stick, staff’<br />
királi ‘k<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
rabo ‘slave; prisoner’<br />
solga ‘serv<strong>an</strong>t’<br />
sabadít<strong>in</strong>en ‘to liberate, set free’<br />
par<strong>an</strong>čol<strong>in</strong>en ‘to comm<strong>an</strong>d, order’<br />
enged<strong>in</strong>en ‘to allow, permit, give way; let go; concede, submit’<br />
baráto ‘friend’<br />
haveri ‘buddy, pal, mate’<br />
pajtáši ‘buddy, pal, mate’<br />
ellenšígo ‘enemy’<br />
somsído ‘neighbour’<br />
idegenno ‘str<strong>an</strong>ger; foreigner’<br />
vendígo ‘guest’<br />
vendígel<strong>in</strong>av ‘to host, regale’<br />
šegít<strong>in</strong>en ‘to help’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 60 <strong>of</strong> 65
víd<strong>in</strong>en ‘to defend; protect; prevent’<br />
sokáši ‘custom, habit, m<strong>an</strong>ner’<br />
feleškedíši ‘quarrel’<br />
talákoz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to meet’<br />
marakod<strong>in</strong>en ‘to quarrel, row, brawl, wr<strong>an</strong>gle; fight, scarp’<br />
háborúz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to lead war, war’<br />
háború ‘war; battle’<br />
bíkeššígo ‘quietude, serenity; peace’<br />
feďveri ‘weapon’<br />
itleko ‘weapon’<br />
pariťťa ‘sl<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
ňila ‘bow <strong>an</strong>d arrows’<br />
kardo ‘sword; saber’<br />
puška * ‘gun, rifle’<br />
šišako ‘helmet’<br />
torňo ‘tower’<br />
ňeríši ‘victory; ga<strong>in</strong>’<br />
vestíši ‘defeat, loss (<strong>in</strong> a game etc.)’<br />
támodáši ‘attack’<br />
fogla ‘captive; prisoner’<br />
bertenéreši ‘prisoner’<br />
éršígo ‘guard’<br />
viďázó ‘watchm<strong>an</strong>, keeper, guard’<br />
halási ‘fisherm<strong>an</strong>’<br />
ž<strong>in</strong>ego ‘l<strong>in</strong>e; fish<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>e’<br />
hálló ‘fishnet’<br />
čaló, čálló ‘bait’<br />
vadás<strong>in</strong>en ‘to hunt’<br />
lev<strong>in</strong>en ‘to shoot’<br />
lédez<strong>in</strong>en ‘to shoot (frequentative)’<br />
múl<strong>in</strong>en ‘to go by, elapse; cease; miss’<br />
čabda ‘trap, catch, pitfall’<br />
tervíňa ‘law’<br />
bíróšágo ‘court <strong>of</strong> justice; judgement’<br />
bíró ‘judge; referee’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 61 <strong>of</strong> 65
t<strong>an</strong>ú ‘witness’<br />
ítíl<strong>in</strong>en ‘to condemn’<br />
bínešno ‘guilty, s<strong>in</strong>ful’<br />
hibášno ‘false; guilty’<br />
bíntelenno ‘<strong>in</strong>nocent’<br />
bíntetíši ‘penalty, punishment’<br />
berteno ‘prison, jail’<br />
ďilkoššágo ‘murder’<br />
erésakolláši ‘rape’<br />
hito ‘belief, faith; denom<strong>in</strong>ation, religion’<br />
oltári * ‘altar’<br />
sentno ‘holy, sacred, sa<strong>in</strong>t’<br />
prédikál<strong>in</strong>en ‘to preach’<br />
áld<strong>in</strong>en ‘to bless’<br />
átkoz<strong>in</strong>en ‘to curse’<br />
bétl<strong>in</strong>en ‘to fast’<br />
poklo ‘hell’<br />
sellemo ‘spirit, ghost’<br />
jelentíši ‘<strong>an</strong>nouncement, report; me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>g, someth<strong>in</strong>g me<strong>an</strong><strong>in</strong>gful; omen’<br />
rádió ‘radio’<br />
televízijó ‘television; TV set’<br />
telefono ‘telephone’<br />
bicigli ‘bicycle’<br />
motorka * ‘motorcycle’<br />
avutó ‘car’<br />
busi ‘bus’<br />
vonato ‘tra<strong>in</strong>’<br />
repilló ‘airpl<strong>an</strong>e’<br />
villaňi ‘electricity, electric light’<br />
ellemo ‘battery’<br />
baterka * ‘battery’<br />
fékez<strong>in</strong>en ‘to brake’<br />
motori * ‘motor, eng<strong>in</strong>e’<br />
gípo ‘mach<strong>in</strong>e’<br />
nafta * ‘petroleum’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 62 <strong>of</strong> 65
petrolímo * ‘petroleum’<br />
korházo ‘hospital’<br />
sestrička * ‘nurse’<br />
tabletta ‘pill, tablet’<br />
<strong>in</strong>ekció ‘<strong>in</strong>jection’<br />
semivego ‘spectacles, glasses’<br />
m<strong>in</strong>isteri * ‘m<strong>in</strong>ister’<br />
čendéršígo ‘police’<br />
čendéri ‘policem<strong>an</strong>’<br />
voďičáko * ‘driver’s license’<br />
tábla ‘plate; blackboard; license plate’<br />
kerestlevelo ‘birth certificate’<br />
válostáši ‘choice, selection; election’<br />
címo ‘address’<br />
sámo ‘number’<br />
ucca ‘street’<br />
póšta ‘post, mail; post <strong>of</strong>fice’<br />
billego ‘postage stamp; seal’<br />
kárťa ‘card; letter’<br />
kípešlapo ‘postcard’<br />
b<strong>an</strong>ka * ‘b<strong>an</strong>k’<br />
čapo ‘tap, faucet’<br />
moždó ‘washbas<strong>in</strong>, s<strong>in</strong>k’<br />
véce ‘toilet’<br />
klozeto ‘toilet’<br />
madraci ‘mattress’<br />
bátogó ‘t<strong>in</strong>, c<strong>an</strong>’<br />
konzerva * ‘t<strong>in</strong>, c<strong>an</strong> (c<strong>an</strong>ned goods)’<br />
čavaró ‘screw’<br />
šrófo ‘screw’<br />
čavarhúzó ‘screwdriver’<br />
míjaňago ‘plastic’<br />
bomba ‘bomb’<br />
míhele ‘workshop’<br />
cigaretta ‘cigarette’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 63 <strong>of</strong> 65
újšágo ‘newspaper’<br />
naptári ‘calendar’<br />
mozi ‘c<strong>in</strong>ema, movies; film, movie’<br />
zene ‘music’<br />
teja ‘tea’<br />
kávéja ‘c<strong>of</strong>fee’<br />
Slovak <strong>an</strong>d/or Czech<br />
* must be Slovak; † must be Czech<br />
mim<strong>in</strong>ko † ‘baby’<br />
žraloko ‘shark’<br />
velriba ‘whale’<br />
úhori * ‘freshwater eel’<br />
škorpióni ‘scorpion’<br />
kengura * ‘k<strong>an</strong>garoo’<br />
búvoli † ‘buffalo’<br />
krokodíli ‘crocodile’<br />
paprečko * ‘toe, claw’<br />
boka ‘hip (external)’<br />
pepšo † ‘black pepper’<br />
špendlíko ‘p<strong>in</strong>’<br />
šperko ‘jewel’<br />
st<strong>an</strong>o ‘tent (tourist)’<br />
futro † ‘doorpost’<br />
zárubňa ‘doorpost’<br />
polička ‘shelf (decorative)’<br />
klenba ‘arch’<br />
malta ‘mortar (build<strong>in</strong>g material)’<br />
jezeďáko † ‘cooperative farmer’<br />
palma ‘palm tree’<br />
kokosi ‘coconut’<br />
šiška ‘cone’<br />
cíno ‘t<strong>in</strong>’<br />
bumer<strong>an</strong>go ‘boomer<strong>an</strong>g’<br />
účeto ‘bill’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 64 <strong>of</strong> 65
daňe ‘taxes’<br />
víkhodo ‘East (= eastern <strong>Slovakia</strong>)’<br />
západo ‘West (= western <strong>Slovakia</strong>)’<br />
šípo ‘arrow’<br />
ošťepo ‘spear’<br />
helma ‘helmet’<br />
baxo † ‘jailer, jail guard’<br />
súdo * ‘court’<br />
víla ‘fairy’<br />
škráteko * ‘elf’<br />
vláda ‘government’<br />
prezidento ‘president’<br />
Vlax <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong><br />
žuvárno ‘st<strong>in</strong>gy’<br />
krísa ‘Vlax community-<strong>in</strong>ternal court’<br />
Elšík <strong>Lo<strong>an</strong>words</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Selice</strong> <strong>Rom<strong>an</strong>i</strong> 65 <strong>of</strong> 65