Accusative and Dative Clitics in Southern Macedonian and Northern Greek Dialects Eleni Buzarovska University of Skopje "Sts. Cyrill and Methodius" The paper deals with certain aspects of the process oĂ Balkanization,^ a term used in linguistics to denote a convergent, unifying phenomenon as opposed to its modem political meaning of separatism and fragmentation. The aim of this paper is to render support for the hypothesis" that Greek syntax has influenced the syntax of the neighboring South Slavic dialects. The above thesis will be substantiated by looking into two interrelated diachronic processes: (1) the merger of accusative and dative clitics within the verb phrase; and (2) the penetration of the preposition na (indirect object marker) into direct object constructions. In other words, it will be argued that the polyfunctionality of Greek dative clitics pushes the adverbal dative to be expressed in a different way from the adnominal in the Northern dialect, thereby causing isomorphism of the accusative and dative constructions. At the same time, taking into consideration the language contact situation in the region, this dative shift or, more precisely, the above mentioned isomorphism, indirectly enables the intrusion of the preposition na with the accusative into the southemmost Slavic dialects. These two structural changes have taken place in Southem Macedonian dialects which have been exposed more than other dialects to the effects of the Balkanization process {cf. TopoliĂąska 1995b). While the second phenomenon was first recorded at the end of the 19th century,' researchers of the southem dialects have registered and described the above phenomena without referring to the causes of their emergence (with the notable exception of TopoliĂąska 1995a). Thus, a systematic, explanatory study of both phenomena is lacking. In arguing that the two processes in the southemmost Slavic language systems were caused by contact with Northem Greek dialects, a plausible etiology and a chronology of the analyzed changes will be offered. By comparing diachronic and synchronie evidence I will try to achieve two complementary goals: (1) show that due to the acceptance of the Northern Greek grammatical Balkanistica 14 (2001)
2
ELENI BUZAROVSKA
pattern the first process resulted in the merger of the accusative and the dative pronominal clitics in South Slavic Macedonian dialects; and (2) offer a plausible explanation for the total loss of the formal borderline between the constructions that express direct and indirect dependence of the verb in these dialects. 1. Formally, the functions of direct and indirect relations in Standard Macedonian (St.Mac) and Modem Greek" (M.Gr) are distinguished by the obligatory presence of their exponents presented in the table below: DAT.
lsg 2sg 3sg(m) (n) (f) lpl 2pl 3pl
St.Mac mi ti mu mu i ni vi im
ACC. M.Gr mu su tu tu tis mas sas tus/tis/ta
St.Mac me te go go ja ne ve gi
M.Gr me se ton to tin mas sas tus/tis/ta
ïn Standard Macedonian the above pronominal clitics always occupy the preverbal position — to the left of the verb. Enclitic use is reserved for the imperative and present participial forms (Joseph and Philippaki-Warburton 1987:213). Modem Greek manifests an identical linearization of the clitics to Standard Macedonian before a finite indicative verb (1), as well as after nonindicative and non-finite verbal forms (2 and 3): (1) St.Mac: M.Gr:
Ke tha FUT 'I will give
Balkanistica 14 (2001)
mu go dadam tu to doso ACC:3SG:M DAT:3SG:M give:PRES:lSG it to him.'
ACCUSATIVE AND DATIVE CLITICS (2) St,Mac: M,Gr:
(3) St,Mac: M,Gr:
daj mu go! dose tu to! give:IMP:2SGDAT:3SG:M ACC:3SG:M 'Give it to him!'
davajki mu dinontas tu give:PRES,PART DAT:3SG:M 'giving it to him'
go to ACC:3SG:M
The dative clitics in the noun phrase express possession or belonging" : (4) St,Mac: M,Gr:
Kerka i kori
mi mu
DEF:F:SG daughter:F:SG
I: DAT
'my daughter' According to the syntactic behavior described above, the clitics have a dual distribution: (1) adverbal, before or after the verb, constituting the verb phrase; and (2) adnominal, after the noun phrase as its constituent. In adverbal position, the clitics — more precisely the proclitics — perform two functions; they can serve to express either direct or indirect dependence of the verb,* In the adnominal position they become enclitics and denote belonging,^ In Standard Macedonian the dative enclitics are used as functional substitutes of possessive pronouns only when they co-occur with nouns whose referents are single (never plural) members of the immediate family;
(5)
Sg: PI:
FAMILY Kerka mi 'my daughter' *kerki mi 'my daughters'
OTHER *raka mu 'his hand' *race mu 'his hands'
Balkanistica 14(2001)
4
ELENI BUZAROVSKA
The limited distribution of Standard Macedonian dative clitics in the noun phrase is thus semantically motivated** such that the Balkan non-Slavic possessive model with dative clitics is used in Standard Macedonian only for rendering existential relations of the type: x is a relative of y (e.g., if x is /, y is sister of mine) formalized as (6): (6)
NPy <— sestra mi <— sister I:DAT CL 'my sister'
NP,3,x sestra na mené sister PREP I:DAT PRON 'sister of me'
By contrast, Greek manifests a wider distribution of adnominal dative enclitics: they express belonging not only with nouns that refer to family members, but with nouns that have an unlimited range of referents — living beings, objects, abstract notions. Accordingly, the morphosyntactic (Balkan) model for expression of belonging with dative enclitics is productive in Modem Greek and unproductive in Standard Macedonian due to the semantic constraint single family member: FAMILY (7) M.Gr: St.Mac:
i kori mu ' the daughter my ' kerkami daughter my 'my daughter'
Balkanistica 14 (2001)
i kores mu ' the daughters my ' moite Kerki my-the daughters 'my daughters'
ACCUSATIVE AND DATIVE CLITICS OTHER (8) M.Gr: St.Mac:
to heri mu 'the hand my' mojata raka my-the hand 'my hand'
i psihi mu 'the soul my" mojata dusa my-the soul 'my soul'
The model witb adjectivized possessive (formalized by possessive pronoun) is typical of all Slavic languages. In Standard Macedonian the "Slavic" model is used for all kinds of relations: possessive proper {mojata kuk'a 'my house') and two possessive-existential (/?!o/'ato raA'รป 'my hand,' majka mi 'my mother'). We can conclude then that the Balkan "syntactic model" for expression of possession (genitive relation) has not been fully accepted in Standard Macedonian.' 1.1. Contemporary Northern Greek dialects manifest a facultative alternation of both accusative and dative forms in the "dative" function, although in the past the accusative clitic {e.g., ton) was used exclusively in the spoken language (Browning 1969:123). Standard Greek
Northern Greek
Accusative
ton vlepo 'him I see' tin vlepo 'her I see'
ton, vlepo tin, vlepo
Dative
tu I dino tis, dino
ton2 dino 'him I give' tin2 dino 'her I give'
Genitive
i mana tu2/*ton i mana tis2/*tin
i mana tU2/*ton i mana tis2/*tin
It can be hypothesized then that the surface exponents of the genitive and the dative relation clashed in the Northern Greek dialects: in a contact situation the need arose for a sharper formal distinction between these two functions. This in Balkanistica 14 (2001)
6
ELENI BUZAROVSKA
turn gave impetus to the spread of the accusative clitics expressing the dative relation as a kind of common casus generalis for formalizing all verbal dependence relations. In other words, the tendency to replace the dative proclitic (tU|) with the accusative proclitic (tonj) is due to the syncretism of the dative enclitic (tu,) used adnominally. The two competing homophonous forms strove for formal functional independence. Hence the genitive function (adnominal) became morphologically distinct from the dative function (adverbal). On the semantic level we are dealing with motivation that springs from the opposition between relations of possession and dependence' (which does not have to be encoded formally, e.g., English 'her' vis-Ă -vis 'his/him'). On the syntactic plane, a surface motivation is at play, manifested by the need to distinguish between the two different syntagmatic positions of the syncretic markers of the dative relation, namely adverbal vs. adnominal position. It is significant that the opposition between the two functions is neutralized in the Greek plural clitics. In Standard Greek the exponent of lpl and 2pl is the single syncretic form mas (lpl) and sas (2pl), respectively:
(9)
to spiti DEF:SG:N house:SG:N 'our house'
adnominal mas we:DAT:lPL
(10) Mas kserun. we:DAT:lPL know:PRES:3PL 'They know us.'
adverbal Mas tilefonun. we:DAT:lPL caIl:PRES:3PL 'They call us.'
Moreover, in 3pl, beside the unmarked form for masculine gender tiis, there are feminine and neuter forms {tis, ta); they are used only as proclitics in adverbal position. Thus, when tus is used adnominally the gender opposition is neutralized:
Balkanistica 14 (2001)
ACCUSATIVE AND D ATI VE C LITICS
7
(11) Tus / tis / ta ksero. they:ACC,3PL,M/they:ACC,3PL,F/they:ACC,3PL,N 'I know them.' (12) tospiti tus/*tis/*ta DEF:SG:N house:SG:N they:DAT:3PL 'their house' The above distinction in (11) and (12) shows that in the plural there is a complete syncretism of the genitive, dative and accusative clitics when they are used adnominally, and only partial syncretism (dative and accusative) in adverbal position. This pattem gives support for the eventual syncretism of dative and accusative in the singular. What we are dealing with then is a case of analogy. 1.2. The fusion of the markers of the two case relations has been recorded in those Lower Vardar Slavic Macedonian dialects that were exposed to a strong Greek influence. The tendency to expand the use of the accusative clitics functioning as universal markers of the verb-object relation is witnessed in Miletic's example from Vatilak (cited by Topolinska 1995a:97). in which go (ACC) is used instead of mti (DAT) in the second clause. The Northern Greek equivalent for both mu and go is the accusative/dative ton. (13) on mu hvarli klucovite i go veli he him threw the keys and him says 'he threw the keys to him and told him' Following the Greek syntactic model the same analogy mechanisms operated in example (14) yielding the use of the accusative ya/tin instead of the syncretic dative-genitive i/tis: (14) majka i mana DEF mother 'her mother
i ya tis tin she:DAT she:ACC says to her'
veli (ya instead of/) lei say:PRES.3SG
Balkanistica 14 (2001)
8
ELENIBUZAROVSKA
According to our hypothesis the replacement of the dative clitic in the above example has occurred in order to maintain the difference between the adnominal and adverbal position. Note, however, Topolinska's (1995a) opinion that ",,, we are dealing here with a tendency only, not a consistent rule," She accounts for the limited distribution of this phenomenon through the loss ",,, of dynamic continuum of syntactic processes that emerged and were reinforced under the pressure of various interference processes," 2, The second phenomenon in Southern Macedonian dialects which was also formed under Greek influence is the insertion of the preposition na into accusative constructions of the type [na -i- noun phrase]. The spread of prepositional structures with na begins in the dative and expands into the possessive construction," According to Topolinska (1995a:93) ",,, due to the loss of morphological dative and taking into consideration the very limited range of nouns which have morphological accusative, the opposition accusative vs. dative can only be emphasized with analytic constructions," Thus, in the following example from the same source, the preposition na is inserted before the definite noun phrase: (15) yas gu vidu I he:ACC see:AOR,lSG 'I saw the child,'
na deteto PREP child:DEF,SG,N
as a contrast to the indefinite in yas vidu I see;AOR,lSG 'I saw a child,'
dete child;SG,N
Compare with the dative construction; mu dava na deteto 'he gives to the child'
Balkanistica 14 (2001)
ACCUSATIVE AND D ATI VE C LITICS
9
The preposition na is a regular bearer of dative relation in the standard language, but in Southem Macedonian dialects it also indicates direct subordination encoded by the accusative. Koneski (1986:202) writes that the above phenomenon was common in the middle of the 19th century (from evidence in the Kulakia gospel and Verkovic's collection), as well as at the end of the 19th century in the region of Kostur (Kastoria), Struga and Debar. The direct naobject is recorded as referring predominantly to animate objects as in (16), which suggests compliance with the animacy constraint: (16) toj ne posluca na zenata mu 'he didn't listen/obey to his wife' Koneski (1986) assumes that this constmction has probably spread under the influence of the Aromanian language (preposition + direct object construction as in example (17) has been registered in some Aromanian dialects), but remarks that Malecki could not find this type of structure in all Aromanian dialects. (17) '1 vizdui pi Taki 'I saw to Taki.' Topolinska (1995a:95), however, believes that this constmction is a syntactic innovation resulting from contact with the Greek language: "... it spreads in the dialects which undergo major interference on the part of non-Slavic Balkan languages, above all Greek; i.e., in the dialects in which the inherited Slavic morphosyntactic system is in the process of retreat." 2.1. We can hypothesize that the /ÂĄa-accusative change probably involves a long process carried out in several stages: a. fusion of the long accusative and dative pronominal forms {menĂŠ, tebe, etc); b. spread of the preposition na into the accusative nominal (and pronominal) constructions denoting a referentially identified individual only; and Balkanistica 14(2001)
10
ELENI BUZAROVSKA
c. suspension of the animacy constraint — the «a-accusative NP can refer to inanimate objects. The replacement of dative long pronouns by the analytical construction [na -taccusative pronoun] has resulted in the generalization of accusative long pronominal forms. This in tum has probably facilitated the spread of the preposition na by analogy with the dative construction. Topolinska (1995a) claims that the dative marker na, due to the semantics of the dative relation expressing a transaction between (two) human participants has become a marker of an animate agent, a bénéficient. She cites numerous examples (recorded by Vatroslav Oblak [1896]) with the animacy constraint applied to the referent of the accusative NP: (18) pitam na mojta zena 'ask to my wife' (19) va covek me kara na men 'this man me scolds to my/myself Gol^b (1961/2-1963/4) gives examples registered in the thirties of the 20th century by Mazon and Vaillant, and Malecki: (20) i go zve na deteto 'and he called to the boy' (21 ) uvarzajte na negu 'tie/arrest to him' Topolinska (1995a:97) suggests that the preposition-marker na first co-occurred with nouns denoting human referents and later its usage became more common with pronouns. This is supported by the following examples'^: (22) go viknuvaat na nego 'they call to him' Balkanistica 14 (2001)
ACCUSATIVE AND D ATIVE C LITICS
11
(23) na nas ne kanija na sfadba to ourselves us invitcd-they to a wedding 'it was us they invited to a wedding' However, in the dialectal material exploring that region (Koneski 1986, Peev 1983, TopoliĂąska 1995a) I have found a few examples with inanimate (rather non-personal) referents which suggests that the process of analogy was extended even further. (24) pustile na ortomata 'they threw to the rope' (25) zcde malku smola i ja izbrisa na masata 'took a little wax and wiped to the table' (26) dojde ain valk vecarta, go izede na skembeto 'came a wolf that evening and ate to the tripe/stomach' (27) fastaci vikat Bugarto na kikiritkite pistachios call the Bulgarians to peanuts 'the Bulgarians call peanuts pistachios' (28) udril na kuleno 'he hit to his knee' (29) gu vjahum na konut mount-I to the horse 2.2. In spite of the limited distribution of the accusative ÂŤa-constructions, the fact that they do exist undermines the thesis of purely semantic-based change and provides grounds for establishing additional syntactic motivation. The above discussion suggests that this syntactic "impetus" may lie in the structure of the Northem Greek accusative construction. To support the thesis of semantico-syntactical motivation of this change and to account for its rise and spread in a neighboring, genetically distant dialect we Balkanistica 14(2001)
ELBNI BUZAROVSKA
12
should first look at the dative and accusative constructions in Northern Greek dialects. Comparison of the following two examples (in which the first clitic is in parenthesis to indicate that the doubling of the object in Greek is optional) confirms that ton functions as an operator of grammatical dependence, i.e., as a surface marker of the verb-object relation, irrespective of whether the following slot is filled with a direct or indirect object. Northern Greek
Standard Macedonian
Ace. (Ton) ipa ton andra. Mu said-I the man him 'I told the: man.
rekov na said-I to
mazot man-the
Dat. (Ton) ida ton andra. Go saw-I the man him 'I saw the man.'
gledam saw-I
0 mazot man-the
The preposition na fills the syntagmatic position opened by the finite verb. In Northern Greek (N.Gr.) dialects this object position is filled with ton or other corresponding accusative proclitics. In Southem Macedonian (So.Mac.) dialects the preposition na was perceived as a functional analogue of ton and therefore copied in direct government, as the following table illustrates'^: DAT. So.Mac. Mu velam na X N.Gr. Ton leo ton X say-I to X
ACC. Go gledam Ton vlepo see-I
na X ton X X
The resultant state in case relations can be schematized as a proportional analogy''': Northern Greek: Southern Mac:
Balkanistica 14(2001)
ACC as indirect object na+NP as indirect object
ACC as direct object na+NP as direct object
ACCUSATIVE AND D ATIVE C LITICS
13
It can be concluded that two consecutive inter-dependent processes have taken place in Greek Macedonian (and other Northern Greek dialects) and Southern Slavic Macedonian dialects: (a) replacement of the dative clitics with the accusative due to the need for syntactic differentiation between adnominal and adverbal position. Contrary to what happened in the Northern Greek dialects this process was not fully completed in neighboring Slavic Macedonian dialects. Its limited distribution in Southern Macedonian and absence of retention classify the change as discontinuous, (b) insertion of na into accusative constructions. This innovation resulted in the loss of the formal boundary between constructions denoting direct and indirect dependence. The change was initiated by the Northern Greek dialectal syntactic model and had a wider distribution than the first process. Consequently, the ÂŤa-accusative construction is still common in some southern dialects {e.g., Enidje-VardarA'anica), but with a more limited referential scope {i.e., it is used only with nouns denoting personal names â&#x20AC;&#x201D; maximally determined persons:'^ see examples 30 and 31), (30) gu videh na Taki saw-1 to Taki (31 ) *gu videh na cuveka saw-I to the man 2,3, The above analysis shows that the first syntactic change was triggered by semantic reasons, that is, by the need for formal distinction between categories of possession and subordination, as well as syntactic, the syntagmatic distinction between NP and VP constituents. The second change was syntactically motivated, though semantically constrained, and was caused by the tendency toward symmetry and syntactic leveling between the two language systems. As a result, the two dialects emerged with an isomorphic structure of their respective verb phrases.
Balkanistica 14 (2001)
14
ELENI BUZAROVSKA
Both changes should be viewed as products of intensive contact among different genetically distant languages on a comparatively small territory (central Macedonia). The simplification of the clitic case paradigm in Northem Greek dialects is an example of a complex, (yet intemally) motivated change from more marked structures to less marked. On the other hand, it might be attributed to the outside pressure of neighboring non-Greek diasystems (Turkish, Slavic, Aromanian, Albanian). The bilingual speakers of these communities (particularly Aromanian merchants and clergy) may have instigated the change in their contacts with the local Greek population. The second change is an example of extemally motivated change. The social context â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the cultural pressure of the more prestigious Greek language within which the change occurred â&#x20AC;&#x201D; determined the direction and the degree of interference {cf. Thomason and Kaufman 1988:23). In addition to the favorable social conditions for language interference, a stmctural tendency for simplification of the Southern Slavic case paradigm contributed to the acceptance of the innovation. The Greek influence on the southemmost Slavic dialects was great enough to cause a structural change in the syntax of the verb phrase, thus further leveling out the case (pronominal) system and generally contributing to the convergent development of both diasystems. Notes 1. Balkanization should not be seen as a single process but rather as a series of different changes affecting different parts of the grammars of two or more neighboring languages, changes that have resulted in their mutual structural similarity. It would be more precise to consider Balkanization as the outcome of processes of accommodation and convergence in the usage of bilingual speakers. 2. As found in Topolinska (1995a:93). 3. See Oblak 1896, as discussed in Topolinska 1995a. 4. Traditionally, the dative short pronominal forms in Modem Greek are called "genitive," due to the syncretism of their forms (except for plural tis and ta). 5. In Modern Greek the possessive pronominal forms are formally identical with the weak indirect object pronominal forms in these two functions. However, Joseph (to appear) claims that phonological divergence is underway in Modem Greek to separate the functions in third person.
Balkanistica 14 (2001)
ACCUSATIVE AND D ATIVE C LITICS
15
6. Joseph (1983) convincingly argues that left-placed clitics are finiteness markers of the verb they precede. 7. Koneski (1967:165) claims that the dative withstood the spread of the accusative the longest. With the loss of the genitive, the dative became the only case for expression of ownership because it found a parallel in the other Balkan languages in which the dative-genitive foiTn was alive. 8. For more discussion on Balkan case systems see Topolinska 1985, 1993 and 1996a. 9. For discussion of the use of dative of possession in Bulgarian vs. Macedonian see Topolmska 1996b. 10. Mackridge states that "[i]t is perhaps possible to trace the origin of the dative 'genitive' in Modem Greek as being precisely that the genitive indicates possession, the consequences of 'harisa to vivlio tu Yani' (I gave / as a present the book to Yani) -> 'to vivlio ine tu Yani' (the book is of Yani)." 11. According to Koneski (1967:165): "The replacement of the dative serving as an indirect object with /;<3-constructions has its origin in the dative of possession. The use of the same prepositional /la-construction both for indirect object and for rendering possessive meaning is due to the fact that it replaces the same dative case form. Thus, 'mu rekov na covekot' (I said to the man) and 'nivata na covekot' (the field of the man) can be traced to the older dative construction m both cases: 'mu rekov coveku (tomu)' (I said to the man (that one's)) and 'nivata coveku (tomu)' (the field ofthe man (that one's))." 12. The examples are from Karanfilovski 1992. 13. Koneski's (1967:168) evidence may serve as support for this thesis. In the translation of the Bible into the dialect of Boboscica (in Southem East Albania) the Greek article tu in a possessive construction with a proper a name â&#x20AC;&#x201D; A nie sme tu Moisi 'We are tu Moses' â&#x20AC;&#x201D; is only a marker of a possession relation. 14. I am obliged to Brian Joseph for this suggestion. 15. The examples were given to me by informants from this area. 16. The author of Le.vicoÂŤ Tetraglosson (part of Didaskatia), a priest and teacher. Daniel, wrote the Greek and the Aromanian versions (published in 1802; see Nicev 1977). A priest, Stefan, from Ohrid, who was, as Daniel, of Aromanian descent, translated the Macedonian column in Tetraglosson.
Evidence of the Aromanian role in the hellenization process can be found in
Daniel's Didaskalia (Nicev 1977) and Martin-Leake's Researches in Greece (1814). Taking into consideration the fact that the bi/multilingual Aromanian speakers acquired Greek as a second language, there was a natural tendency on their part to simplify asymmetrical grammatical pattems (Buzarovska 1996).
Moreover, being mostly sheep breeders and merchants (Wace and
Balkanistica 14 (2001)
16
ELENI BUZAROVSKA
Thompson 1914; Skendi 1980), in other words more mobile than other ethnic groups, they couid have played a more active role in the diffusion of Balitan language innovations.
References Browning, Robert. 1969. Medieval and Modern Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buzarovska, Eleni. 1996. "Leksicka interferencija na jazicite vo Makedonia," Jazicite na pocva na Makedonija. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Science. Goliib, Zbignew. 1961/62, 1963/64. "Dva makedonski govora (na Suho i Wisoka)," Makedonski Jazik 11-12, 13-14. Joseph, Brian D. 1983. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . To appear. "Is There Such a Thing as Grammaticalization? Language Sciences. Joseph, Brian D. and Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 1987. Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm Ltd. Karanfilovski, Maksim. 1992. Enidjevardarskiot govor. Doktorska disertacija. Skopje: Filozofski fakultet (unpublished manuscript). Koneski, Blaze. 1967. Istorijata na makedonskiot jazik. Skopje: Kultura. . 1986. "Direktniot na-objekt vo makedonskiot jazik." Makedonskiot XIX vek. Skopje: Kultura. Mackridge, Peter. 1985. The Modern Greek Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martin-Leake, William. 1814. Researches in Greece. London: John Booth, Portland Place. Nicev, Aleksandar. 1977. Cetirijazicnija recnik. Godisnik na Sofijskija universitet, tom 70. Sofija: Universitetska biblioteka. Oblak, Vatroslav. 1896. Macedonische Studien, Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen AcadĂŠmie der Wissenschaften, Wien. Peev, Kosta. 1983. Kukuskiot govor. Doktorska disertacija. Skopje: Filozofski fakultet (unpublished manuscript). Skendi, Skender. 1980. Balkan Cultural Studies. East European Monographs. New York: Columbia University Press. Balkanistica 14 (2001)
ACCUSATIVE AND D ATI VE C LITICS
17
Thomason, Sara G., and Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. London: University of California. Topolinska, Zuzanna. 1985. "Autor de la relation possessive," Prilozi. Skopje: MANU. . 1993. "Ways of Expressing Case Relations in Macedonian Dialects," Zbornik Matice Srpske zafilologiju i lingvistiku 36:1. . 1995a. Makedonskite dijalekti vo Egejska Makedonija. Tom I. Skopje: MANU. . 1995b. "Convergent Evolution, Creolization and Referentiality," Prague Linguistic Circle Papers, Hajicova, E., M. Cervenka, O. Leska and P. Sgall (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. . 1996a. "Case and Voice - Two Strategies for Grammaticalization of the Relationship between a Predicate and Its Arguments," Jttznoslovenski Filolog LII. . 1996b. Studii od Makedonsko-Bugarska jazlcna konfrontacija. Skopje: MANU. pp. 11-38 Wace, A.J. and M.S. Thompson. 1914. The Nomads of the Balkans. An Account of Life and Customs among the Vlachs of Northern Pindus. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Balkanistica 14 (2001)