Gjuhësi Ballkanike

http://www.dielli.net
factors accounting for the redoubling of the objects in Rumanian have been the same as in
Albanian.(9). This phenomenon in Rumanian seems not to be so ancient. It should also be
recalled that this phenomenon in Rumanian has not been so frequent during the XVI-XVIII
centuries.(10). In current Rumanian, too, the situation has not changed so much. For ex. the
redoubling of the indirect object expressed by a noun, generally, does not occur, when it is
placed after the predicate.(11). It should also be recalled that the direct object, too, expressed by
a noun placed after the predicate is generally not redoubled.(12).
The redoubling of the objects is a well-known phenomenon of Bulgarian and Macedonian, too,
particularly of western Macedonian, whereas in literary Bulgarian it is rather of “a facultative
character”. It seems that the redoubling of the objects in these languages, too, has been
conditioned by the same factors as in Albanian and Rumanian.(13-14). In Bulgarian-
Macedonian this phenomenon seems to be not so ancient. At any rate, it has developed there
after the XII-XIII centuries, probably under a certain influence of the other Balkan
languages.(15).
It seems that in Greek, too, the redoubling of the objects has been conditioned by the same
factors mentioned above.(16). It seems also not to be so ancient in that language. At any rate, it
is necessary to make further researches not only for the written attestations but also for its
dialectal extension.(17).
As the Slavish and Greek sources of this Balkan phenomenon are to be excluded, it remains to
examine some other principal opinions expressed so far on this question. Miklosich has
included it among the Balkan phenomena of autoctonous origin. But Miklosich's conjecture
seems not to be plausible, since this phenomenon in the Balkan languages should not be so
ancient. Moreover, it gives no answer to the questions: In which language should it have
occurred at first and how has it been extended to the other languages? (18-19). According to
Ilievski, who criticizes Miklosich's view, the source of this Balkan phenomenon is to be sought,
most likely, in the Balkan vulgar Latin.(20). It should be borne in mind, however, that the
phenomenon under discussion has had a larger diffusion in the Balkan languages than in the
western Romance languages. Moreover, in the Balkan languages it does not seem to be so
ancient as to be traced back to that period, when one can speak of a Balkan vulgar Latin.(21).
The rise and development of such a phenomenon could not have been due to pure chance. It
should have been brought about by one or more factors. This remark is unaivoidable, even if
one were to admit the so-called Latin influence in this regard. Such an influence could not have
been possible, if the Balkan languages should not have felt the need for such a phenomenon.
Among the factors suggested so far for the explanation of this phenomenon in all the Balkan
languages or in a particular one of this area one may cite those of the “over-determination”, of
the homonymity of case forms, and of the actual division of the sentence.(22). The first
explanation has been presented by Boissin for the Albanian language.(23). A similar view has
been expressed also for the Rumanian phenomenon by various linguists, particularly by
Budagov. According to this linguist, the redoubling of the object in Rumanian was brought
about to re-express the “definiteness”, as the postpositive article in that language had lost much
of its “demonstrative” ability, as compared to the prepositive article of the western Romance
languages. Budagov's thesis is liable to various critical remarks (see the Albanian version).(24).
According to some other scholars, particularly by Lopaљov, the redoubling of the objects in the
Balkan languages has been brought about by the need to avoid the homonymity between the
nominative and accusative, on one hand, as well as that between genitive and dative, on the
other. This thesis, too, is liable to various critical remarks (see the Albanian version).(25).
Some other linguists have tried to explain the redoubling of the objects in this or that Balkan
language by means of the actual division of the sentence. This theory should be considered as a
step forward in the way of resolving the question under discussion. But it fails to make clear the
phenomenon in all its complexity. In this connection, one should bear in mind the different
syntactic conditions, wherein the redoubling of the objects occurs when they are expressed by
the first two persons, and by the third person of the personal pronouns or by means of other
words, respectively.(26).
190