Romanian definite article revisited

Dr. Sorin Paliga Bucharest CDU 805.90-21 ROMANIAN DEFINITE ARTICLE REVISITED Introduction 1 shall attempt to resume a long, almost endless discussion: the origin of the Romanian definite article. Any grammar of Romanian or any comparative grammar the Romance languages (e. g. Tagliavini 1977) always observes that Romanian, an isolated case in the Romance family, has an agglutinated definite article. The typology is not indeed rare: Bulgarian, Albanian, Armenian, Basque and Swedish witness the same mechanism. We cannot approach the topic by analysing all these languages, yet a comparative analysis would be finally useful. In our case, it is obvious that Romanian cannot be isolated from Albanian and Bulgarian. A potential solution must explain the situation in ALL these three "Balkanic" languages, even if Romanian is not Balkanic stricto sensul. The paper shall focus on the deep roots ofthe Romanian and Albanian definite article, its typological relations with other linguistic areas, and shall attempt to explain this isolated situation in the field of Romance linguistics. For sure, the Romanian definite article mainly reflects the Latin heritage. Nevertheless, by saying only this, the tableau is not complete: some forms are not Latin but Pre-Latin, Thracian. This paper will try to substantiate this assertion. The definite article of nouns and adjectives Though the facts are well known, 1 shall resume the basic facts and point out less known details. At a first glance things are so simple: the definite article reflects the agglutinated Latin demonstrative. And yet... The term Balkanhalbinsel 'Balkanic Peninsula' was coined in the year 1808 by the Berlin geographer Johann August Zeune starting from the Turkish word balkan 'mountainous rocky land' and presumably reflects a calque after Bulg. Stara planina. The word Balkan(s) had a tremendous success, especially in its extended meaning (including its political connotations). The original meaning was purely geographic and referred to the modem states of Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania and Greece. 71 Pl. S ing. N.A. G.D. v. * ~ t t Mase. -u, -ul, -le* -lu(i)~ Fem. -a -(e)i, -(i)i Mase. -i -lor t Fem. -le -lor -ul-e t The form -u is always eolloquial and is attested in the oldest Romanian texts, whereas -ul is bookish. Both are used with the former Latin nouns of seeond declension or assimilated with them (e. g. lupus >Rom. lup). The form -le is both eolloquial and bookish and is used with former nouns of third declension (e. g. canis, Aee. canem >Rom. cfine). Therefore the definite forms are, e. g., lup-lupul, but cfine-cfinele. Lu is always eolloquial, lui (with i pronouneed as semivowely) belongs almost exclusively to the written language. ldentieal to the personal pronoun, genitive-dative. Identieal to the personal pronoun plural, genitive-dative. Common nouns like om -omule,fecior 'son' -feciorule, but copil 'ehild' -copile. The pattern is therefore: sometimes noun + definite article -ul + ending e (< Latin voeative -e), sometimes the definite article is not required (no rule). See below the ease of personal names. Mase. sing. N. A. -u is as old as the form -ul, despite the largely spread hypothesis that the eolloquial form -u would be simplified from -ul. Oldest Romanian texts witness -u rather than -ul. It is true that the form -ul is the only aeeepted in written texts, whereas -u belongs to the spoken language and is in faet the unique spoken form. Mase. ·sg. N. A. form -u has an identieal parallel in Albanian, e. g. sho k- shok-u 'a eolleague, eomrade', zog - zogu 'a bird', ete. Useless to say that the form -u eannot be explained from Latin like ali the other forms in Albanian, where the paradigms are more eomplieated. Let us eompare the Albanian forms: The Albanian Definite Article Forms in the Nominative singular Mase. -i or -u Fem. -a -t, -te N. Pl. -t, -te 72 N G D Ae. Abl. Type l i! Ind. Def. i it it - in, ne it Type II t Ind. Def. u u ut ut u un,ne u ut Type III* Ind. Def. a e s, se e s,se n,ne e s,se Type IV t Ind. Def. t, te it it t, te it Type V** Ind. Def. t, te ve ve, vet ve ve, vet t, te sh,ve ve, vet if Includes most maseuline names. t Includes some maseuline forms whieh end in -g, -k, -h or in a stressed vowel. * Feminine; includes also a few personal maseuline names whieh end in -e or -o, like tate, tata. t Includes ali neuter forms. ** Plural forms. First eonclusions: (!) form -u is as old as the form -ul, perhaps even older (see below); it is identieal to Albanian paradigm in -u; (2) form -ul refleets indeed Latin ille with the link vowel -u-. • Mase. sing. N. A. form -le is used in ease of words ending in -e e. g. cfine < Lat. cane(m), i. e. former Latin names of third deelension or assimilated to it. It obviously refleets Lat. ille. • Fem. sing. N. A. -a refleets Latin illa. Things are more eomplieated with the G. D. form -ei and sometimes -ii. It is well known that Fem. sing. G. D. forms are identieal to Fem. pl. N. A. forms (non-articled), e. g.fata 'girl' - fete whieh is both G. D. sing. and N. A. pl. The definite article is ealled to clarify the ease:fetei 'to the girl' - fetelor 'to the girls'. So we may question whether the artiele of the fem. sing. G. D. is -i, identieal to Albanian -i, or -ei as hypothesised by many linguists, it is true not taking into aeeount the Albanian forms. Diffieult to deeide: if the old paradigm in Romanian for fem. sing. is (indefinite v. definite respeetively) -a v. -e (e. g.fata - fete), then the definite article for fem. gen. is INDEED -i (pronouneed as a semivowel y, not -ei, pronouneed ey). It is true that the eorresponding personal pronoun G. D. is ei (v. mase. lui), but for both genders the short (unstressed) form is i. I would not dare to derive it from Latin as many other linguists do. • Fem. pl. N. A. -le refleets indeed the Latin demonstrative. The same is valid for the forms -lui and -lor identieal to the oblique eases of the personal pronoun el (mase. sing.) - G. D. lui and ei (mase. pl.) - !or. • Romanian neuter forms follow the general rule: maseuline forms are used for the singular and feminine forms for the plural. Romanian neuter is therefore strietly different from Slavic or German neuter. A brief survey with the corresponding example is perhaps useful: 73 Masculine (indefinite / definite) Sing. cfine / cfine-le N.A. om / om-u, om-ul cfine / cfine-lui om / om-u-lui G.D. N. A. G. D. Pl. oameni / oameni-i oameni / oameni-lor cfini / cfini-i cfini / cfini-lor Note: The graphic sequence ii includes (1) the mark for plural -i + (2) the definite article -i; it is pronounced as vowel i, against the indefinite plural form in -i which is pronounced as a very short i, in fact a palatalisation of the previous consonant. Therefore, the pl. indefinite form lupi is pronounced /lupi/, whereas the pl. definite form lupii is prounced /lupil proper. The various pronounciations of graphic i represent a hard try for the foreigners who study Romanian. N. A. G. D. N.A. G.D. Feminine (definite / indefinite) S ing. fat-ii / fat-a femei-e / femei-a fet-e I fete-i femei I femei-i (i-i is pronounced lil) Pl. fete 1fete-le fete I fete-lor femei / femei-le femei / femei-lor Note: In feminine singular, the opposition definite - indefinite ofthe first class (ending in -ii) is the opposition ii/a. ii is the neuter vowel a, usually the quality of a in unstressed position; a similar sound is Alb. e and Bulg. o. Again, the spelling ii reflects a normal lil, against the spelling i which in Romanian usually reflects the semivowel ly/. Romanian neuter has no special forms. It uses the masculine forms in the singular, and the feminine forms in the plural, with (sometimes) the mark of plural -uri which is only for neuter plural. Otherwise the paradigm follows the same rule: the neuter is masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural. The Jatin ille, illa, illud has been considered and accepted as the origin of the Romanian definite article. It is indeed so, yet NOT ALL THE FORMS reflect this origin. And, if we refer to Albanian, with which Romanian has indeed much in common, we can realise that the situation is not so simple. It is not simple indeed even if we ignore the Albanian forms, as usual with most linguists who have analysed the topic. The popular Latin forms which explain the definite article not only in Romanian, but also in Westem Romance languages, are: 74 N.A. G.D. D. Singular Masculine *ellu (str.), *lu (unstr.) *lui *li (cf. Arom. l'i, Rom. i) Feminine *ella (str.), *la (unstr.) *laei (= *ler;i) *li Plural N.A. G.D. D. A. *elli (str.), *li (unstr.) *loru *le (Rom. le, It. le) *lo(s) (cf. Old Rom. la) *elle (str.), *le (unstr.) *loru *le *lo(s) (cf. Old Rom. la) This reconstruction (Ivanescu 1980: 133-134), one ofthe best I have knowledge of, does not explain ali the Romanian forms, among these the feminine singular form -a and accusative sing. of the feminine pronoun -o. Ivanescu justly notes, on the next page, that the agglutinated position of the Romanian definite article should be explained as a Thracian influence. He refers, of course, to the known fact that both the definite article and the adjective follow the rule "first the noun, then the article and/or adjective". This is the usual form in Romanian, though dialectally some forms ofthe definite article are placed before the nouns and, from various stylistical reasons, the adjective may be placed before the noun. But the standard, also archaic, order is noun + definite article or noun + adjective. He does not dare mention that those forms difficult to explain via Latin may very well be inheritied from the Thracian substratum, like - on the other hand-the colloquial and dialectal forms ofthe verb aji 'to be': fs 'I am, they are', ii 'he, she is', which can NEVER be explained from Latin, but rather reflect a Thracian heritage. The limited purpose of this paper does not allow me to extend the discussion. It is high tirne to pass to the next step: The definite article of demonstratives and adverbs! Romanian is different from any other Romance or Germanic Ianguage by using a specific form of the definite article. The situation has not been properly observed by most linguists and grammarians, so 1 shall concentrate on it. Romanian uses an invariable definite article -a for both demonstrativa and adverbia. The invariable form -a should NOT be confused with the feminine definite article of singular forms. Many linguists, by not confusing the situation, simply claim that this specific -a is a particle. It is not a particle, it is a genuine and very clear definite article. Some examples may prove relevant. 75 Demonstrativa The invariable definite article for demonstratives is used for mase. and fem. sing and mase. and femine plural forms. It is always -a. Examples: • acest 'this' (mase. sing.) - acesta 'this (plus the definite article)'; no equivalent translation. approx. 'this [person] 1 am talking about'. Acest om este sarac 'this man is poor' Acesta este sarac 'this (definite: man 1 am talking about) is poor' • same eonstruetion is applied to similar forms like acel 'that' - acela • aceasta 'this (fem. sing.) - aceasta 'this (plus the definite article)'; no equivalent trans lati on. approx. 'this [womanl 1 am talking about'. Aceastafemeie este saraca 'this woman is poor' Aceasta este saraca 'this (definite: woman I am talking about) is poor' 'these' (mase. pl.) - ace~ti (same meaning plus definite article); no equiva• ace~ti lent trans lati on, approx. 'these [persons] I am talking about'. • acei 'those' (mase. pl.) - aceia; identieal eonstruetion as above. • aceste (fem. pl.) - acestea 'these [women]' without and respeetively with the definite article. • acestor (G. D. plural forms for both mase. and fem.) 'to these [men or women] acestora. • acelor (G. D. plural forms for both mase. and fem.) 'to those [men or women] aceslora. Adverbia Few adverbs very frequently used witness the same definite article -a. Examples: • ades (from adj. des <Lat. densus) 'frequently' - adesea (with link-vowel -e whieh, given its position, is pronouneed like a semivowel: e-o-a). • pururi 'for ever, etemally' - pururea (with the same link-vowel -e); also in the eonstruetion de-a pururi - de-a pururea (same meaning, same parallel without and with definite article respeetively)2. Two exceptional forms: tatii!tata 'father' and popiilpopa 'a priest' Tata 'father' is articled tata (identieal to Alb. tate, tata), and popa 'a priest' is articled popa. It is outstanding that these two exeeptional forms have never been properly analysed, aeeording to my available information. The origin of tata is, of eourse, 2 Pururi was initially a noun, ofneuter gender, *pur, pl. pur-uri, presumably ofThracian origin and having the meaning 'tire' i. e. 'etemal fire'. For the peculiar evolution of this meaning see Paliga 1992, reprinted in Paliga 1999. 76 Latin tata, -ae m., used in colloquial Latin (the modem English equivalent would be 'dad, daddy'). The masculine gender ofthe Latin original is preserved in Romanian. Things seem much more complicated with the form popa 'a priest'. All the dictionaries and studies I have knowledge of (no exception) indicate that the origin is Slavic popo, not Latin popa, -ae (also a colloquial word) 'a priest in charge with sacrifices'. Rom. popa is also exclusively colloquial (against the forma!, official term preot <Lat. presbiterum). Indeed the Slavic form popo cannot be avoided, nevertheless things are not so simple, because Slavic popu cannot result in Rom. popa. This origin is to be identified in NP Pop, against Popa. The only argument I have heard 3 (never read) is that Lat. popa should have resulted in Rom. *poapa. I doubt that such an evolution is possible, because (1) the diphtongation in the pre-final syllable (o > oa, in literary Romanian, or o > o, i. e. open short o, in regional Transylvanian Romanian) is the EXCLUSIVE attribute ofthe femine gender, and (2) a Slavic masculine could NEVER result in a Romanian masculine noun with feminine aspect. In fact, beside popa 4 , there is only tata.s It is impossible to accept the idea that Lat. tata and popa 6 , two colloquial Latin forms of masculine gender of the first declension, preserved in Romanian as tata and popa respectively use the definite feminine article. In these two forms, THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE HYPOTHESIS is that they preserve the archaic bi-gender (or bi-functional masculine-femine) article -a of Thracian origin. We cannot know the various paradigms of the Thracian noun, but it is safe and logical to assume that such an article did exist, as it has been preserved in some archaic Romanian forms belonging to the basic vocabulary. A would-be form *poapa is really impossible, as the diphtongation ofthe pre-final o in case of feminine words ending in -a and (sometimes) -e is such a strong mark of the femine gender, that the rule is followed by the recent borrowings, e. g. director m. directoare. Popa 'priest', with a deep mark of the masculine character, can never become *poapa which sounds pejorative. The word is really sometimes heard with the meaning 'a priest's wife'. 3 Dr. Gheorghe Mihaila, specialist in Old Church Slavonic and author ofnumerous books regarding the relations between the Romanians and the Slavs. 4 It is not the purpose ofthis paper to discuss the origin ofSlavic popo, but 1 wonder whether the largely accepted theory wh ich considers this word as reflecting Gr. -Lat. papas should not be rather replaced by a less comfortable theory, implied in this text, that it reflects Rom. popii. For further discussions regarding the oldest Romanian and Thracian borrowings in Slavic see Paliga 1996, passim. 5 Rom. vodii, abridged from vojevoda, also with feminine aspect, is an obsolete undeclinable form of Slavic origin. It is not used any more: the word disappeared from the common vocabulary when the historical and social context disappeared too. Tatii and popii have remained words ofthe basic vocabulary. 6 Lat. tata belongs to the childish vocabulary, while the colloquial .form popa is presumably of Etruscan origin (Ernout-Meillet 1959 s. v.). 77 The definite article of personal names Personal names follow some other rules, i. e.: • The G. D. form for masculine is placed before the noun, e. g. N. A. Petre - G. D. lui Petre. As always, the definite article is identical to the G. D. personal pronoun. • The feminine personal nouns are ALWAYS articled in the N. A. case: Ileana, Maria, also NL Sojia, Londra, unlike their masculine counterparts which are not. Masculine place-names follow the same rules as masculine common names (i. e. non-articled in N.A. basic forms). • The feminine G. D. forms are identical to the common nouns. Nevertheless in contemporary Romanian the G. D. masculine form is used, though it sounds strangely: lu (instead of bookish lui) Ileana. The form is almost acceptable for foreign feminine personal nouns which cannot be included in a Romanian paradigm ending in -a or -e, e.g. N.A. Carmen - G. D. lui Carmen. The normal form would be *Carmenei, but it is merely theoretical: nobody uses it. Problems appear in written Romanian, not in colloquial Romanian. But maybe the most interesting fact is represented by the personal family names ending in -a. They are represented by an important number of names of various roots: indigenous Thracian, Latin and Slavic. By tradition, a family name reflect the male ascendency, and some of them are indeed articled with the masculine article -u (never ul, which is exclusively bookish), e. g. brad 'a tir' - NP Bradu, Bradeanu (indigenous Thracian root); lup (Latin lupus)- NP Lupu, Lupescu (Latin root), Mircea (from Sl. mir) etc. Another category is represented by the forms ending in -a or -e_a (a diphtong, with the specific semivowel e+, dialectally pronounced i+): Bradea, Lupea, Toma, Nicula, Mircea etc. As easily observable, a is the (masculine) definite article, not an -a ending as suggested by most scholars. Ifthere are stili doubts, 1 must add that in ali such forms, the -a definite article may be replaced by the usual masculine definite article -u, without any change of sense, even though sometimes the -u-articled forms are not usual or never used as such. Discussion Romanian shares with Albanian and Bulgarian the specific agglutination ofthe definite article. Typologically this construction is also met in Swedish, Armenian, Basque and - according to recent theories - in Etruscan. By analysing ali the available relevant data we can observe that: • Romanian is closely related to Albanian in many aspects, specifically the mase. sing. form N.A. -u (colloquial in Romanian) and fem. sing. G. D. -i. 78 • Romanian is unique in preserving an invariable definite article -a for both adverbs and demonstratives. This form should not be confused with the fem. sing. form -a ofpresumably Latin origin. This article is also used in the case of two words belonging to the basic vocabulary: tatii and popil, both of masculine gender. • The other forms reflect Latin ille, illa and, for plural, the oblique cases ofthe personal pronouns are agglutinated and used as the definite article. • The Bulgarian definite article is a calque after Thracian and/or Romanian. An accurate analysis could be made only after deciding whether Thracian was still spoken at the arrival of the first Slavic groups in the South Danubian regi on, which is very probable (a hypothesis well argumented by the Bulgarian School of Thracian Studies). It is feasible to admit that the agglutinated definite article in Bulgarian and Macedonian is a calque after the indigenous Thracian substratum, later consolidated under the (Proto-) Romanian influence. References Baric, Henrik 1919. Albano-rumanische Studi en. Sarajevo. Bonfante, Giuliano 1966. lnjluences du protoroumain sur le protoslave? Acta Philologica 5: 53-69. Brancu~, Grigore 1983. Vocabularul autohton al limbii romane. Bucre~ti: Editura Stiintificii ~i Enciclopedicii. Brancu~, Gr. 1991. !storža cuvintelor. Bucre~ti: Coresi. Candrea, I. -A., Ovid Densusianu 1914. Dicfionarul etimologic al limbii romane. Elementele latine (a-putea). Bucre~ti: Socec. Cihac, Alexandru de 1870-1879. Dictionnaire etymologique daco-romane, I-II. Frankfurt. Cioranescu, Alejandro 1960 sq. Diccionario etimol6gico rumano. La Laguna. Condurachi, E. 1971. L' ethnogenese des peuples balkaniques: les sources ecrites. Studia Balcanica (Sofia) 5: 249-269. Editura Constantinescu, N. A. 1963. Dicfionar onomastic romanesc. Bucre~ti: Academiei. Coteanu, Ion 1981. Originile limbii romane. Bucre~ti. Coteanu, I., L. Seche, M. Seche (ed.) 1975. Dicfionarul explicativ al limbii romane. (DEX). Bucre~ti: Editura Academiei. Junimea. Dan, Ilie 1983. Contribufii la istoria limbii romane. Ia~i: Densusianu, Ovid 1901-1938. Histoire de la langue roumaine. Paris. 79 Dimitrescu, Florica (coord.) 1978. lstoria limbii romane. Fonetica, morfosintaxa, lexic. Bucre~ti: Editura Didactica ~i Pedagogica. Ernout, A. and Meillet, A. 1959. Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine. 4e ed. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck. Editura Stiintifica ~i Enciclopedica. Fischer, I. 1985. Latina dunareana. Bucre~ti: Georgiev, VI., Iv. Gatabov, J. Zaimov, St. Ilaev et alii 1971-1979-1986 (3 vols., stili uncompleted). Bolgarski Etimolgčen rečnik (BER). Sofia: Balgarskata Akademija na Naukite. Giuglea, George 1922. Cuvinte ~i lucruri. Dacoromania II: 327-400. Giuglea, G. 1923. Crlmpeie de limba ~i viata straveche romaneasca. Elemente autohtone (pre-romane), greco-latine, vechi germanice. Dacoromania III: 561-628. Editura Stiintifica ~i Giuglea, G. 1983. Cuvinte romane$ti $i romanice. Bucre~ti: Enciciopedica. Giuglea, G. 1988. Fapte de limba. Marturii despre trecutul romanesc. Bucre~ti: Editura Stiintifica ~i Enciclopedica. Editura Stiintifica ~i Enciclopedica. Gotu, G. 1983. Dicfionar latin-roman. Bucre~ti: Hasdeu, B. P. 1887-1898. Etymologicum magnum Romaniae. Bucre~ti. Hasdeu, B. P. 1973. Scrieri istorice, 1-II, Bucre~ti. Hasdeu, B. P. 1988. Studii de lingvistica $i jilologie. Ed. lngrijita de Gr. Brancu~, 2 Minerva. vol. Bucre~ti: Huld, Martin E. 1984. Basic Albanian Etymologies. Columbus (Ohio): Slavica Publishers. Junimea. lvanescu, Gheorghe 1980. lstoria limbii romane. la~i: lvanescu, Gh. 1983. Lingvistica generala $i romaneasca. Tim~oa: Facla. Loma, Aleksander 1993. Neue Substratnamen aus Dacia Mediterranea. Linguistique Balkanique 36, 3: 219-240. Macrea, D. (ed.) 1958. Dicfionarul limbii romane moderne. Bucre~ti. Macrea, D. 1982. Probleme ale structurii $i evolufiei limbii romane. Bucre~ti: Editura Stiintifica ~i Enciclopedica. Meyer-Liibke, G. 1935. Romanisches etymologisches Worterbuch, ed. a 3-a. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Mihaescu, Haralambie 1978. La langue latine dans le sud-est de l 'Europe. Bucre~ti-Pas: Editura Academiei-Les Belles Lettres. Mihaila, Gheorghe 1971. Criteriile determinarii lmprumuturilor slave In limba romana. Studii $i cercetari lingvistice 22, 4: 351-366. Mihaila, G. 1973. Studii de lexicologie $i istorie a lingvisticii romane$ti. Bucre~ti: Editura Didactica ~i Pedagogica. Mihaila, G. 1974. Dicfionar al limbii romane vechi (s.fir$itul sec. X- inceputul sec. XVI). Bucre~ti: Editura Enciclopedica romana 80 Paliga, Sorin 1991 Apen;;u de la structure etymologique du roumain. Linguistica 31: sexagenario in honorem oblata). 99-106 (Paulo Tekavčic Paliga, S. 1992 Pururi: focuri. Academica 2,8 (20): 14. Paliga, S. 1993 Slovani, Romuni in Albanci v l. tisočleju. Slavistčn Revija 41, 2: 237-243 Paliga S. 1996. !nfluenfe romane §i preromane in limbile slave de sud. Bucre~ti: Lucretius. Paliga S. 1999. Thracian and Pre-Thracian Studies. Bucre~ti. Papahagi, Tache 197 4. Dicfionarul dialectului aroman, ed. a 2-a. Bucre~ti. Philippide, Alexandru 1923-1928. Originea romanilor, 1-II. Ia~i. Poghirc, Clicerone 1969. lnjluenfa autohtona, In Rosetti et alii (ed.) 1965-1969, 2: 313-364. Poghirc, C. 1976. Thrace et daco-mesien: langues ou dialectes? Thraco-dacica 1: 335-347. Poghirc, C. 1987. Latin balkanique ou roumain commun? Romanica Aenipontana 14: 341-348. Pu~cari, Sextil 1905. Etymologisches Worterbuch der rumanischen Sprache, I. Heidelberg. Pu~cari, S. (ed.) 1913-1948. Dicfionarul Academiei romane, A-L. Bucre~ti. Pu~cari, S. 1976. Limba romana. Bucre~ti: Minerva 1940). (prima editie: Bucre~ti Rosetti, Al., B. Cazacu, I. Coteanu (ed.) 1965-1969. /storža limbii romane, 2 vol. Bucre~ti: Editura Academiei. Rosetti, Alexandru 1986. /storia limbii romane, edifie definitiva. Bucre~ti: Editura Stiintifica ~i Enciclopedica. ~aineu, Lazar 1929 (DU). Dicfionar universal al limbii romane, ed. a 6-a, lngrijita de M. Staureanu. Craiova. Tagliavini, Carlo 1977. Originile limbilor neolatine. lntroducere in filologia romanica. Bucre~ti: Editura Stiintifica ~i Enciclopedica. Tapkova-Zaimova, V. 1962. Sur les rapports entre la population indigene des regions balkaniques et les "barbares" du VIe-vne siecle. Byzantinobulgarica 1: 67-78. Tapkova-Zaimova, V. 1972. La competence des sources byzantines sur la survivance de l 'ethnie thrace. Thracia 1: 223-230. Velkov, Velizar 1962. Les campagnes et la population rurale en Thrace au 1ve-vie siecle. Byzantinobulgarica 1: 31-66. Velkov, V. 1972. Thrakien in der Spatantike (IV-VI Jhdt.). Thracia 1: 213-222. Vraciu, Ariton 1980. Limba daco-gefilor. Tim~oar: Facla. Vraciu, A. 1981. Unele probleme ale cercetarii limbii traco-dace ~i ale urmelor ei In romana. Limba romana 30, 1: 27-35. 81 Povzetek NOV POGLED NA DOLČNI ČLEN V ROMUNŠČI Dolčni člen v romunšči ni zgolj latinskega izvora, kot je mislila ogromna večina raziskoje večina oblik seveda latinskih. Za dolčni člen je namreč mogče ugotoviti arhične valcev, čeprav črte, nedvomno avtohtonega trako-dakijskega izvora. Zasledimo jih v obliki za moški spol ednine na -u, ki ima popoln ustreznik v albnšči, kakor tudi v dolčnem členu prislovov na -a, kar dela romunščio v romanski jezikovni družini za docela samosvojo. Doprinos avtohtonega trako-dakijskega jezikovnega fonda je treba tehtati v širšem kontekstu, v celovitosti vpliva substrata; ta je mnogo pomembnejši, kot je to pripravljena sprejeti večina raziskovalcev tega jezikovnega obmčja. 82