Loanwords in Romanian: 1. The Language and Its Speakers
Loanwords in Romanian: 1. The Language and Its Speakers
Kim Schulte
University of Exeter
[email protected]
Romanian can be subdivided into two major dialect groups, the Muntenian-
based dialects spoken in the south, and the Moldavian-based ones spoken in the north
of Romania and the Republic of Moldova. The official name of the national language
of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan or Moldavian, but linguistically speaking it
is very similar to the neighbouring dialects of north-eastern Romania. In general,
Romanian has comparatively little dialectal variation, but regional differences can
nevertheless be observed and are the basis for a distinction between dialects such as
Moldavian, Transylvanian, or that of the Banat region. An important distinguishing
feature between regional varieties is their lexicon, particularly lexical loans;
unsurprisingly, those donor languages spoken in the immediate vicinity tend to be the
source of a comparatively larger proportion of loanwords in the respective regional
varieties.
In order to provide loanword data for Romanian as a whole, the lexicon used
for the database entry is not based on any specific regional dialect, but on what is
considered to be part of the language according to the Romanian Academys
dictionary (Coteanu et al., 1998). As a result, a number of the loanwords included are
most commonly used in particular regions; in some cases, this results in the
incorporation of several synonyms borrowed from different source languages.
The historic foundations for the emergence of Romanian were laid when the
Dacians, inhabitants of an area broadly coinciding with modern-day Romania, were
defeated by the Romans under Emperor Trajan between 101 AD and 106 AD, leading
to the foundation of the Roman province of Dacia. This was followed by a period of
intense colonisation and Romanisation, during which a regional variety of Popular
Latin established itself as the local language. The contact with the rest of the Roman
Empire was relatively short-lived, as the invading Goths forced Rome to pull out of
Dacia after less than 170 years, around 271 AD. Despite the comparatively short
duration of direct contact with the rest of the Roman Empire, language shift from the
Thraco-Dacian substrate to Latin must have been sufficiently extensive for a Latin-
based language that we might call proto-Romanian to completely replace the substrate
language(s), though this may have been a gradual and prolonged process (see Section
3.1. below).
Subsequently, various peoples invaded the area, generally moving in from
the northeast and east. Whilst some invading tribes, e.g. the Huns, left few cultural
and linguistic traces, other populations settled amongst the early Romanian speakers,
notably Magyars (from the 9thcentury) and Slavs in several waves of migration (6th-
11th century), providing ideal conditions for long-term linguistic contact. There is an
ongoing debate as to whether ethnic Romanians have been living in areas north of the
Danube, particularly in Transylvania, continuously since Roman times, or whether
they were pushed back by a large Hungarian population, eventually returning to those
areas at a later stage. As this debate is primarily politically motivated and linked to
territorial claims, it will not be entered into here; in any case, the linguistic evidence
suggests a considerable degree of cultural contact, typical of a situation of
cohabitation over an extended time period.
Other linguistically relevant historical events include the arrival of German
settlers in Transylvania in the 12th and 13th centuries, encouraged by the Hungarian
rulers, and the imposition of Ottoman suzerainty from the 16th century, bringing the
population into increased cultural, administrative and trade-based contact with other
areas of the Ottoman empire, particularly modern-day Turkey, Bulgaria, and Greece.
2. Sources of data
The source of the lexical data, i.e. the Romanian words corresponding to the meanings
contained in the Loanword Typology Database, was either the authors personal
knowledge or standard bilingual dictionaries (Isbescu, 1995; Savin et al., 1997;
Levichi & Banta, 1992), complemented by the Romanian Academys monolingual
dictionary (Coteanu et al., 1998) and a dictionary of synonyms (Seche & Seche,
2002); the latter were used to identify any existing synonyms and to determine the
degree of semantic overlap between near and partial synonyms.
The two main sources of the etymological information that appears in the
database are (a) the Romanian Academys Dicionarul explicativ al limbii romne
(Coteanu et al., 1998), which provides the source language and etymon, where
known, for each entry, but does not supply any additional etymological explanation or
discussion, and (b) Cioranescus (1966) etymological dictionary of Romanian, which
contains very detailed etymologies but has a limited number of entries. Where neither
of these default sources provided a fully satisfactory etymology, it was either
complemented with suggestions by time-honoured Romanian philologists (Pucariu,
1997 (1943); Philippide, 1894; Hadeu, 1877, 1879, 1883), or more specific studies
dealing specifically with the etymology of loanwords from individual source
languages were consulted. Among these, Wendt (1960) examines loans from Turkish,
Miklosich (1860, 1862-65) investigates the incorporation of Slavic elements into
Romanian, Conev (1921) looks at contact between Bulgarian and Romanian, Murnu
(1894) and Diculescu (1924-26) investigate Greek elements in Romanian, whilst
Cihac (1879) and McClure (1976) examine the loans from various source languages.
Information regarding the exact word form of the source word was frequently taken
from dictionaries of the respective languages, e.g. Newmark (1998) and Fiedler &
Klosi (1997) for Albanian, Gruji (1998) for Serbian, and Steuerwald (1972) for
Turkish. Information regarding the earliest known source word was obtained from
etymological dictionaries of various languages, e.g. Corominas (1961) for loanwords
shared with Spanish and Grebe (1963) for loanwords with German cognates.
3. Contact Situations
For the present analysis of loanwords in Romanian, the focus lies on words borrowed
into the language after Latin began to be used in the area where Romanian is spoken
today. Whilst it is neither possible nor sensible to define an exact point in time at
which Latin became Romanian, it can be ruled out that a Latin-based Romanian
language existed before Latin began to be used in the territory. Thus, Latin loanwords
such as Germanic hemidi mantel, shirt, which entered Latin, via Celtic, as camisia
shirt, alb and was passed on, like any native item, to its Romance daughter
languages (Spanish camisa shirt, French chemise shirt, Romanian cma shirt),
are certainly borrowed, but into Latin, not into Romanian. As the aim of this chapter
is to examine the impact of borrowing on the lexical structure of Romanian and to
compare and contrast these developments with other languages (including Romance
sister languages of Romanian), the following survey examining contact situations that
have left their traces in the Romanian lexicon will begin around the time when a
specifically Dacian or Romanian regional variety of Popular Latin began to develop,
namely in the second century AD, after the Roman conquest of the area.
3.6.1. Trade
Turkish traders settled along the Black Sea coast from the late 15th century onwards.
Being a relatively small group of the population, the overall impact of this contact
was largely limited to commercial transactions.
5. Integration of loanwords
The phonological development leading to the creation of this cluster is not limited to
Romanian; cognate forms such as Serbian zdravo healthy show that this is a more
wide-spread, regional process. However, the occurrance of the same initial consonant
cluster in Romanian words with unkown origin may be an extension of this
phonological sequence beyond the originally borrowed items, indicating that the
cluster has become a fully integrated part of the language.
However, this pattern is, in fact, indigenous, as shown in the inherited word for star.
3
Whether the metathesis of the two vowels is linked to the original difference in quantity is unclear.
originally Slavic derivational morphology on loanwords does not set them apart from
other Romanian words.
6. Grammatical borrowing
As a member of the well-known Balkan convergence area, Romanian has developed a
considerable number of morphological and syntactic structures in parallel with the
other member languages of the Balkan Sprachbund. For some of the features shared
among these languages, it is impossible to determine in which direction they were
borrowed, or whether they are simply the result of joint development. These include
postposition/suffixation of the definite article, a case system in which the genitive and
the dative have merged, an analytic comparative, the formation of the numerals eleven
to nineteen with a preposition meaning on or over, following the pattern one-
over-ten, two-over-ten etc., formation of an analytic future tense with a verb
originally meaning to want, and the use of an empty imperative verb (Greek ide,
Turkish haydi, Bulgarian/Romanian haide), used to encourage the addressee to go
ahead with an unspecified but pragmatically obvious action; in Bulgarian and
Romanian, haide can receive morphological person inflection (Romanian haidem
(1PL) and haidei (2PL).
For other features shared by the Balkan languages, a specific source
language can be pinpointed. For instance the widespread tendency to use finite
subordinate clauses instead of infinitival clauses even in cases of subject coreference
is generally attributed to the merger of the infinitive and subjunctive in Greek,
subsequently spreading across the Balkan Peninsula.
Other features of Romanian morpho-syntax can be attributed directly to
specific source languages. The use of an obligatory attribute agreement marker is a
feature of Albanian, and presumably of pre-Latin substrate languages in Romania,
that has been borrowed into Romanian, albeit with greater restrictions on its usage.
Among the morphological features clearly borrowed from South Slavic are
the use of a vocative in /-o/ for feminine nouns ending in /-a/ in their nominative
form, the loss of the final syllable of the infinitive, and a large set of derivational
morphemes directly borrowed from South Slavic (du Nay, 1996: 102-108).
Finally, in more recent times, an increased use of the infinitive since the
second half of the 19th century may, at least in part, be attributable to the strong
influence of French (Close, 1974: 227). However, this is not a complete innovation;
the French model is likely to have acted as a reinforcement of an incipient resurgance
of the infinitive in certain constructions, especially in prepositional adverbial clauses
(Schulte, 2007: 308-316).
7. Conclusion
Having borrowed from a considerable number of languages over the centuries,
Romanian can serve as an example of a language with a high degree of lexical
permeability. Borrowing has taken place in a number of very distinct types of contact
situations, ranging from cohabitation and population mix on the one end of the scale
(e.g. South Slavic) to predominantly indirect contact (e.g. French). Despite the
fundamentally different nature of these contact situations, both have provided a large
amount of morphologically and phonologically fully integrated lexical material.
Whilst the differences between contact situation types affect the number of
loanwords from particular languages in certain semantic categories, borrowed items
are found in all areas of the lexicon. Loanwords are not only used for objects and
concepts for which there was no indigenous word, but have also been introduced as
synonyms for existing words; in some cases this has led to the creation of multiple
synonyms from a number of different donor languages. Borrowed synonyms often
coexist with little or no discernible meaning difference, though their availability is
sometimes exploited to make subtle semantic or pragmatic distinctions. Some
loanwords are typically associated with a particular register, but generally even words
from high-status source languages are used in colloquial speech, which shows that
they have been fully integrated into the language.
The continuous addition of lexical material from various source languages
over the centuries means that a large proportion of the vocabulary of present-day
Romanian is not inherited from Latin; in some semantic areas loanwords far
outnumber inherited ones. Even relatively basic words denoting continually present
meanings, such as features of the natural environment, are frequently borrowed.
Whilst it might therefore be argued that Romanian is a language with a hybrid
vocabulary, the large number of words borrowed from other Romance languages over
the last two centuries nevertheless gives its lexicon a distinctly Romance appearance.
Bibliography
Cihac, Alexandru. 1879. Dictionnaire dtymologie daco-romane. Vol. 2: lmemts
slaves, magyars, turcs, grecs-moderne et albanais. Frankfurt/Main: St.Goar.
Ciornescu, Alexandru (Alejandro). 1966. Diccionario etimolgico rumano. La
Laguna: Biblioteca Filolgica/Madrid: Gredos.
Close, Elizabeth. 1974. The development of modern Rumanian. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Conev, Benju. 1921. Ezikovni vzaimnosti medu blgari i rumni. Sofia: Sofia
University Press.
Corominas, Joan. 1961. Breve diccionario etimolgico de la lengua castellana.
Madrid: Gredos.
Coteanu, Ion, Luiza Seche, Mircea Seche et al. 1998. DEX Dicionarul explicativ al
limbii romne, 2nd ed. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic/Academia Romn
Institutul de Linvistic Iorgu Iordan.
Diculescu, Constantin. 1924-26. Elementele vechi greceti din limba romn.
Dacoromania IV, 394-516.
du Nay, Andr. 1996. The Origins of the Rumanians. The early history of the
Rumanian language. Toronto/Buffalo: Matthias Corvinus Publishing.
Fiedler, Wilfried & Ardian Klosi. 1997. Wrterbuch DeutschAlbanisch.
Berlin/Mnchen: Langenscheidt.
Grebe, Paul et al. 1963. Duden Etymologie. Herkunftswrterbuch der deutschen
Sprache. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut (Dudenverlag).
Gruji, Branislav. 1998. Depni renik nemako-srpski. Belgrade: Janus.
Hall, Robert A., Jr. 1974. External History of the Romance Languages. New York:
Elsevier.
Hadeu, Bogdan Petriceu. 1877. Columna lui Traian VIII (1877).
1879. Cuvinte den btrni, vol.1. Bucharest.
1883. Columna lui Traian XIV (1883).
Isbescu, Mihai. 1995. Dicionar germanromn. 60.000 de cuvinte. Bucharest:
Teora.
Levichi, Leon & Andrei Banta. 1992. Dicionar englezromn. 70.000 de cuvinte.
Bucharest: Teora.
McClure, Erica F. 1976. Ethnoanatomy in a multilingual community: an analysis of
semantic change, American Ethnologist 3 (3): 525-542.
Mihil, Gheorghe. 1973. Studii de lexicologie i istorie a lingvisticii romneti.
Bucharest: Editura didactica si pedagogica.
Miklosich, Franz. 1862-65. Lexicon palaeoslovenico-greco-latinum. Vienna:
Braumller.
Die slavischen Elemente im Rumunischen (Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften XII). Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Murnu, George. 1894. Studiu asupra elementului grec ante-fanariot n limba romn.
Bucharest: Tipografia Curii Regale, F.Gbl Fii.
Newmark, Leonard. 1998. AlbanianEnglish Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Petrucci, Peter R. 1999. Slavic Features in the History of Rumanian. Munich: Lincom
Europa.
Philippide, Alexandru. 1894. Istoria limbii romne. Vol. 1: Principii de istoria limbii.
Iai: Tipografia Naional.
Pucariu, Sextil. 1997 (1943). Die rumnische Sprache. Bucharest: Grai i Suflet
Cultura Naional.
Rosetti, Alexandru. 1978 (1968). Historia Limbii Romne. Bucharest: Editura
tiinific i Enciclopedic.
Savin, Emilia, Ioan Lzrescu & Katharina nu. 1997. Dicionar germanromn.
Bucharest: Editura tiinific.
Seche, Luiza & Mircea Seche. 1997. Dicionar de sinonime al limbii Romne.
Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic.
Schulte, Kim. 2005. Vowel Centralization in Romanian Verbs of Slavic Origin:
deliberate exploitation of an indigenous sound change? In: Jacobs, Haike and
Geerts, Twan (eds.) Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 378-94.
2007. Prepositional infinitives in Romance. A usage-based approach to
syntactic change. Bern/Oxford: Peter Lang.
Steuerwald, Karl. 1972. Trkischdeutsches Lexikon. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Wendt, Heinz Friedrich. 1960. Die trkischen Elemente im Rumnischen (Berliner
byzantinistische Arbeiten 12). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Loanword appendix