Aspects of the Balkans. Continuity and change
H. Birnbaum and S. Vryonis (eds.)
THE STATUS OF TURKISMS IN THE PRESENT-DAY BALKAN LANGUAGES
Ystävälleni Raimo Anttilalle
I. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
III. THE RETREAT OF TURKISMS
IV. TURKISMS TODAY
A. Exceptions to the Retreat of Turkisms
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
I. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
When I undertook to prepare a study on the present status of Turkisms in the various Balkan languages, I was being somewhat overambitious. For to do full justice to such a topic one should possess the sort of Sprachgefühl which results only from a good firsthand knowledge of all Balkan languages, a claim which unfortunately I cannot make. The only Balkan languages about which I can speak with some degree of authority are my native Greek and, to a much smaller extent, Albanian. Most of my remarks on the state of affairs in the other languages are second-hand. Because of the somewhat subjective nature of any study dealing with matters of style and connotation, many of the judgments expressed here inevitably reflect my own personal way of looking at a number of Turkisms. [*]
It has become commonplace by now to say that the Balkan languages show great similarities with respect to Turkisms — Bronsert 1968, p. 97.  Thus it was largely the same Turkish elements that were borrowed into each language, and even the fate of individual Turkisms has been by and large the same in all languages : some Turkisms have disappeared, some have become well-anchored and virtually indispensable elements of a
*. The research for this study was made possible by a Fourth-Quarter Fellowship from The College of The University of Chicago for the summer of 1969. I wish to thank all those persons who contributed comments and corrections, namely Academician Vladimir Georgiev and Professors Henrik Birnbaum, Ivan Dujčev, Thomas Eeckman, E. P. Hamp, Pavle Ivić, Boris Kremenliev, Basil Laourdas, Albert Lord, Josef Matl, Traian Stoianovich, and Andreas Tietze. I am particularly grateful to my colleague E. P. Hamp for going over a number of points with me one day before the oral presentation of this paper.
1. All references are listed alphabetically (under the same author chronologically) at the end.
given language, others have acquired a pejorative, ironical, or vulgar connotation, and so on. But there are also many differences from one language to another: Turkisms which may be part and parcel of the literary variety of one language may have been considerably lowered on the stylistic scale of another or become historical words, and so forth. To my knowledge, there are not at present enough detailed studies on the stylistic status of specific Turkisms in individual Balkan languages.  Much more work is needed before we can attempt a serious synthesis of the overall Balkan situation — Bernstein 1968, p. 79; Bronsert 1968, pp. 97-98.
Unless specified otherwise, I shall be talking about the standard  varieties of Albanian,  Bulgarian, Greek, Macedonian, Rumanian,  and Serbocroatian. By "standard language" we mean "a dialect, or some closely similar group of dialects enjoying prestige as the speech of educated people of the capital city  or of some other socially respected group" — Robins 1964, p. 57. I would like to emphasize that it is educated SPEECH, even more than writing, that will be our main concern. We should therefore keep in mind that educated speech encompasses a wide variety of styles, from formal all the way to the colloquial, relaxed style one uses in communicating with one's intimates. The term 'Turkish' here refers exclusively to Osmanli Turkish. The elements labelled as Turkish are often ultimately of Arabic or Persian origin, a fact of little
2. Some gratifying exceptions are Bahner 1958, Bronsert 1968, Jašar-Nasteva 1962- 1963, Markov 1955, and Mirčev 1952 (itself a synthesis, but a very valuable one).
3. This limitation was dictated, among other things, by considerations of space. For, note that Balkan Turkisms are generally both more numerous and more lively in the dialects than they are in the standard languages — Hazai 1961, p. 103, n. 9; Ivić 1958, pp. 144, 234, 242-243; Koneski 1965, pp. 101-102; Šăineanu 1900, p. 279; Stojanov 1952, p. 219; Triantaphyllidēs 1963a, p. 62. We are not necessarily equating the notion of dialect with that of RURAL dialect. Thus Škaljić (1966, p. 16) for one refuses to pronounce himself on whether Serbocroatian Turkisms are used to a greater extent in the villages or in the cities. On the other hand, Ivić says that in the Serbocroatian- speaking area the influence of Turkish has been stronger in the cities (1958, p. 245; cf. also pp. 192, 234, 242). Similarly Skok (1937-1938, p. 168) regards it as a certainty that Turkisms in Serbocroatian are by far more numerous in the towns than they are in the villages. Indeed, the folk language in the mahallât of Balkan towns, including the capital cities, is typically very rich in Turkish elements — mahallât, plural of mahalle, is used here roughly in the sense of French quartiers populaires. Cf. Hristea 1958; Šăineanu 1900, p. 256.
4. Of Albania, not Yugoslavia.
5. No reference will be made here to the Moldavian language, spoken in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic.
6. This refernce to the capital city is sometimes irrelevant in the Balkans, e.g. in the case of Albanian and Macedonian.
interest for our study since as far as the Balkans are concerned it was the Turks who introduced the elements in question into the area. 
When young people from different Balkan countries meet, we sometimes witness exchanges like the following:
Greek : Do you say ἰμάμ μπαϊλντί  in Bulgarian?
Bulgarian : Imám bajaldə̣́? Of course! How about you, do you have a word pušt  in Greek?
Greek : Pušt? I don't think so. Wait a minute! Of course we do: πούστης.
And so on. What these people are doing is compare Turkisms in their respective languages — from culinary terms to obscenities. Turkish linguistic elements constitute a common denominator (not the only one, to be sure) for the spoken form of all Balkan languages. Turkish further reinforced the Balkan linguistic union (Sprachbund) in certain respects, such as vocabulary and 'phraseology' — in the sense of French phraséologie.  The influence of Turkish culture and of the Turkish language on the culture and the languages of the Balkan peoples was very strong and embraced just about every facet of material and spiritual life. Turkish linguistic influence was felt mostly but by no means exclusively in the lexicon of those languages — the notoriously least stable level in any language. It is not necessary to repeat here how instrumental the Turks were in creating or transforming urban centers in the Balkans — Skok 1935, pp. 252 ff., 1937-1938, pp. 173-174; Stavrianos 1958, pp. 107-108. It is not surprising, then, that Balkan terminology having to
7. I have not followed this principle everywhere with the same consistency: thus I do not distinguish between those Turkisms which entered Rumanian directly from Turkish and those very numerous ones which passed through some intermediary, usually
Bulgarian — Šăineanu 1900, pp. 279-280.
8. Turkish imambayıldı 'a dish of aubergines with oil'. For the sake of simplicity, Turkish equivalents of Balkan Turkisms are given in their standard modern Turkish form. This obviously does not mean that we necessarily regard precisely those standard forms as having served as models for the Balkan Turkisms. For some interesting observations concerning the dialectal situation of Balkan Turkish as it is reflected in South Slavic Turkisms, see Hazai 1961, pp. 117ff. Also Bernstein 1968, p. 77.
9. Turkish puşt ‘calamite’.
10. Bronsert (1968, p. 93) speaks of a "communauté du fonds lexical" ("et phraséologique", one might add). See also ibid., p. 94.
do with the handicrafts and with many other aspects of urban life abounds with Turkish loanwords.
Great numbers of Turkisms were to be found in all those parts of the Peninsula which had remained under Ottoman domination for a prolonged period of time,  and even on the territory of the fomer Danubian Principalities, Walachia and Moldavia, where Turkish rule had been exercized only indirectly — although admittedly there the influence of Turkish has been smaller: Bronsert 1968, pp. 97, 99. There were of course regions where Turkish linguistic influence was relatively greater. Those were urban or rural areas with rather heavy Turkish colonization, as well as those regions where a large part of the native population became Moslem — Mirčev 1952, pp. 117, 119; Ivić 1958, pp. 234, 242-243; Gołąb 1959, p. 27; Bernstein 1968, pp. 76-77; Skok 1937-1938, pp. 167-168, 175.
The latter remark, however, in no way implies that the number of Turkisms which entered the speech of the non-Moslem population was somehow insignificant — Skok 1935, p. 251. Indeed, I think that one of the sociolinguistically most interesting questions that one can ask in connection with the adoption of Turkish elements in the Balkans is this: why were so many words and expressions borrowed, despite the religious and social barriers between the Turks and the majority of their Balkan subjects? We are obviously not speaking about the many terms that had to do with administration, law, the army, and the like. And neither are we referring to words describing new dishes, artifacts, trades, and so on, that is 'things' introduced into the area by the Turks. We are speaking
11. The length of the occupation was probably a contributing factor. Thus Northern Greece and some Greek islands, which remained within the Ottoman Empire until the first decades of the present century, typically preserve a greater number of Turkisms than do those regions which made up the new kingdom of Greece almost one century earlier. It is just as plausible, however, that we have here a combination of factors, rather than the effect of only one, namely the relative length of Ottoman domination. Thus it may be that Northern Greece has more Turkisms because it has been under the influence of the Athenian standard for a SHORTER period of time (roughly half a century), and not so much because it was under the Turks for so LONG. Moreover, it is precisely in those parts of Greece which were annexed in the 20th century that Turkish colonization and the non-Turkish Moslem population (Albanian, Greek, etc.) were concentrated. A further factor is surely that the bulk of Greek refugees from Turkey were resettled in parts of Northern Greece. Those people, who left Turkey in the early 1920's, were largely bilingual, and their Greek was full of Turkish elements. A good number of them were even monolingual speakers of Turkish — it was mainly their Greek Orthodox religion that made them 'Greek'. To return to the relative length of the Turkish occupation, it should be pointed out that the number of Turkisms is large in Montenegro (Skok 1935, p. 251) and also considerable in Slavonia (lvić 1958, p. 299) — both these regions were under the Turks for a relatively short time.
rather about those Turkish elements which replaced or joined perfectly good native terms or expressions. Unfortunately, it is far beyond the scope of this paper to try to answer this question in any detail. I shall therefore limit myself to a few remarks, which moreover contain little that is new. According to Škaljić (1966, pp. 12-13), the great number of Turkisms in Serbocroatian was due to the following factors: the presence of Turkish military and administrative personnel; the influence of native Moslems, some of whom studied in Constantinople (also Skok 1937-1938, p. 174); the diffusion of folk songs (and oral literature in general), which were full of words and expressions of Oriental origin — see also Knežević 1962, p. 5; Skok 1935, pp. 251, 255, and 1937-1938, pp. 171-172, 174; Hazai 1961, pp. 116-117; Vranska 1952, pp. 220-222. On the other hand, Hazai (1961, pp. 99-100, 114-116) sees a particularly important factor in the intense colonization of certain areas with Turkish-speaking settlers, to the extent that Turkish became the dominant language in a large part of the territory — see also İnalcik 1966, p. 28.
Correct as Hazai's observation undoubtedly is, it still does not explain, I think, the great inroads that Turkish made even in those regions where there were virtually no Turks, other than soldiers and administrators. The answer is probably that Turkish, the official language of the Ottoman Empire, enjoyed considerable prestige among non-Turkish speakers, irrespective of their religion — Hazai 1961, pp. 100, 115; inalcik 1966, p. 33.  The factor of prestige is closely related to that of fashion, which is probably one of the most important causes of lexical replacement: oversimplifying a bit, we can say that many older words are partly or wholly replaced by new ones, because they have become old-fashioned. It is highly plausible that Osmanli Turkish constituted a favorite source of replacements or (near-)synonyms for native Balkan words. It was a language with which a good number of non-Turks were more or less familiar and moreover it was a prestigious language.
III. THE RETREAT OF TURKISMS
As was to be expected, Turkish linguistic influence came to a standstill ufter the liberation of the various Balkan nations — Skok 1935, p. 252. It is, however, somewhat of a surprise to hear Skok (1935, p. 251) say
12. "Le prestige est dans le renouvellement des vocabulaires une dernière cause sociale qu’on ne doit pas oublier" — Vendryes 1921, p. 267.
that he knows of no puristic tendencies in the Balkans directed against Turkisms, the reason being that the latter allegedly began to disappear as it were by themselves. To be sure, most of the Turkish terminology that had to do with official Ottoman institutions, such as the army, the administration, the monetary system, Moslem law, and so on, was replaced during the first decades following the establishment of the national states. Most of those terms, which we can call for short "administrative Turkisms", are by now historical words, used, for example, in order to lend a more authentic flavor to historical accounts or works of fiction dealing with 'the time of the Turks'. As we know, however, Turkish loanwords in the Balkan languages extended to many other semantic domains as well. A good many such 'non-administrative' Turkisms were no doubt eliminated from the various languages more or less spontaneously, as the objects, trades, etc. to which they referred ceased to exist, and also as a result of the gradual development of education and the new orientation of the Balkan intelligentsia towards Western Europe and sometimes also towards Russia — Skok 1935, p. 252; Mirčev 1952, p. 121 and passim. But this should in no way mislead us into believing that no DELIBERATE efforts were made at the same time to rid the Balkan languages of their Turkisms. It may well be that Skok's assertion to that effect (1935, p. 251) is correct with respect to Serbo-croatian,  but it is emphatically incorrect as far as the other Balkan languages are concerned.
We are not, of course, including here Macedonian, which was not proclaimed one of the national languages of Yugoslavia until 1944, a decade after the publication of Skok's article (1935). But, with the
13. Cf. Knežević 1962, pp. 6-7. According to Mirčev (1952, pp. 121-122), Turkisms were eliminated much more rapidly from Bulgarian than they were from Serbocroatian. He explains this by referring to the relative influence of Russian on those two languages. That influence began to be felt in Bulgaria and in Serbia at approximately the same time, but it had much greater force and lasted much longer in the former. Skok himself in a later work (1937-1938, p. 175), makes a much less sweeping statement than the one in his 1935 article: he writes that Serbocroatian purists have never turned against Turkisms WITH THE SAME VEHEMENCE with which they attacked other foreignisms, such as Germanisms or Italianisms. My colleague Dr. Ranko Bugarski, of the University of Belgrade, tells me that to his knowledge Serbian purists have never waged a campaign against Turkisms, but that some Croatian purists have occasionally done so. As an example of the latter, he mentioned the article "Turcizmi se sire" ('Turkisms are spreading') in Jonke 1965, pp. 405-407. See also Hämeen-Anttila 1963, p. 230. It would have been interesting to compare the status of Turkisms in the two basic variants of the Serbocroatian language (cf. Magner 1967, pp. 336-338), but unfortunately such a comparison lies beyond my field of competence.
establishment of the Macedonian literary language, purism set in there too— Koneski 1965, p. 188. 
In the other four linguistic communities with which we are concerned (Albanian, Bulgarian, Greek, and Rumanian), there definitely were vigorous puristic movements directed against Turkisms, as well as against some other types of foreign linguistic elements.  The efforts to 'purify' the Balkan languages of their Turkish elements began even before the liberation of the various countries. This was done in conjunction with the national renaissance movements which accompanied the awakening of the Balkan peoples to national consciousness — Skendi 1967, p. 123; Skok 1935, pp. 251-252. It is interesting to note that in Albania, the only Balkan country with a Moslem majority (about 70%), it was not only or even mostly Christian intellectuals who participated in the purge of Turkisms, but Moslem ones as well — Bulka 1957, p. 206; Skendi 1967, pp. 123, 143.
Probably the most ferocious puristic movement in the Balkans was that which was launched in Greece. The first period following the establishment of the Greek state in the 1830's was characterized by a gradual shift of the written language in the direction of Attic Greek, a trend which continued until roughly the turn of the century — Triantaphyllidēs 1938, pp. 96 ff. ; Skok 1936, pp. 473-475. Moreover, the puristic or learned variety of Greek, katharevousa, which had been used by the Greek intelligentsia throughout the duration of Ottoman rule, had remained virtually free of Turkisms — Skok 1935, p. 252. 
At the present moment, the battle against Turkisms has subsided considerably in those parts of the Balkans where the standard language has had more time to establish itself. Puristic campaigns are, however, still going on in Albania, a country which was under Ottoman rule until the second decade of this century and whose population is largely Moslem. 
14. Cf. also some puristic and prescriptive remarks in Markov 1955, p. 161. Gołąb (1959, p. 44) speaks of "the anti-Turkish tendency in the newly-created literary Macedonian" and expresses the view that "the creators and codifiers of this language ... are endeavouring to limit the number of the old Turkish loan-words in the literary language".
15. Cf. Krajni 1965 and 1968, Riza 1952, and Xhuvani 1956, pp. 13, 180, for Albanian; Andrejčin et al. 1964, pp. 127-128 (cf. also their puristic recommendations on pp. 126, 146), Baeva 1966, Makedonska 1952, Mirčev 1952, pp. 121-123, and Stojkov 1952, p. 145 and passim, for Bulgarian; Triantaphyllidēs 1938, pp. 49, 98, and 1963a, pp. 60-73, 133, and passim, for Greek; Graur 1967, pp. 53, 56, for Rumanian.
16. Good short accounts of the Greek language question can be found in Triantaphyllidēs 1963c and Ferguson 1959.
17. Cf. Krajni 1965, pp. 148-149; cf. also p. 150, where he writes that the elimination of Turkisms from Albanian is "a patriotic duty, a duty for all [of us]" (një detyrë patriotike, një detyrë për të gjithë).
Something similar may still be true of Yugoslav Macedonia, which also remained in the Ottoman Empire until quite late (1912), has a considerable Turkish-speaking population,  and whose dominant language, Macedonian, has enjoyed the status of a literary language for only a quarter of a century — cf. Gołąb 1959, p. 44.
Although puristic norms are easier to introduce in the written language, they can also have considerable impact on the spoken language as well. To what extent the latter is being influenced by the written language depends on such factors as the rate of literacy, the ready availability of communication media,  and the like. The Balkan languages were no exception to this, even though as we shall see the surviving Turkisms are admittedly both more numerous and more frequent in the spoken standard and in written styles purporting to reproduce speech than they are in the written language in general.
The spontaneous falling into disuse, for one reason or another, of a number of Turkisms, as well as deliberate puristic campaigns, were responsible for the fact that the various standard languages in the Balkans have today far fewer Turkisms than they had as late as a few decades ago — Koneski 1965, pp. 187-188; Krajni 1965, pp. 148, 149; Mirčev 1952, p. 125; Graur 1967, p. 56. 
IV. TURKISMS TODAY
A. Exceptions to the Retreat of Turkisms
Despite the general retreat of Turkish loanwords which took place after the liberation of the various countries, there are still today a great many
18. About one-tenth of the total population — Magner 1969, p. 3.
19. Not only books and the press, but also such 'spoken' media as the radio and television are instrumental in spreading the written language, since their programs consist partly in reading aloud written texts.
20. Stojkov (1952, p. 168) says that earlier literary works in Bulgarian are partly unintelligible today, because of their heavy use of Turkisms which are no longer current. The same can be said of the other languages as well. Sometimes glossaries are needed to translate less well-known words, including a fair number of obsolete Turkisms. For instance, we find such glossaries in Karadžić 1937 and in Folklor shqiptar 1963. We thus have a reversal of the 19th-century situation where some terms used as replacements of popular Turkisms were so little understood by the average reader that the authors would often gloss them with their Turkish equivalents, which were much better known — Koneski 1965, p. 187; Makedonska 1952, pp. 223-224; Bronsert 1968, pp. 94-95. Cf. also Mirčev 1952, p. 124.
Turkish elements left in the Balkan languages. The avoidance and replacement in higher styles of a number of Turkisms in each language did not necessarily push them OUT of the language. In many cases it simply meant that they were pushed DOWN stylistically, that they were 'demoted' as it were — Bronsert 1968, pp. 98-99 and passim. But even what we have called the 'retreat' of Turkisms has not been without a few exceptions : in some instances there has actually been a territorial expansion of Turkisms. This was the case in those formerly Austro-Hungarian territories annexed by Rumania and Yugoslavia after World War I.  The prestige of the Muntenian-based literary language in Rumania and that of the Belgrade standard in Yugoslavia helped spread a good number of Turkisms to the Western regions of both countries — Skok 1937-1938, p. 175, also 1935, p. 252.  The spread of Turkisms to those regions was of course intimately connected with the diffusion of cultural elements, such as for example sevdàlīnke '(Moslem) love songs (or poems)' (cf. Turkish sevda 'love, etc.') and ćevàpčići 'hachis de viande roulée et grillée' (cf. Turkish kebab 'roast meat') in the Serbocroatian linguistic domain — I owe this remark to Professor Pavle Ivić.
Another important instance of Turkisms actually spreading occurred in Greece — Kapetanakēs 1962, p. 7. As a result of the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey which began in 1923, about 1,300,000 Greeks emigrated to Greece. Those refugees from Turkey imported a large number of Turkisms, some of which found their way into at least the passive (receptive) vocabulary of part of the remaining population. This happened both directly, through personal contact with refugees, and indirectly, through reading.  The refugees would use some Turkish loanwords so consistently that the non-refugees would end up by learning their meaning. Then there was the influence of lighter literary genres, like the causerie, the funny column, and so on. I think I
21. We are obviously not including here Bosnia and Herzogovina, which were placed under Austria-Hungary only after the Congress of Berlin (1878). Skok (1935, p. 255) Skok (1935, p. 255) says that some Turkisms did not become pan-Serbocroatian until after the establishement of the Yugoslav state.
22. This of course does not mean that Turkisms had formerly been entirely absent from those regions: cf. Skok 1935, p. 251, and 1937-1938, p. 174; Ivić 1958, p. 299. Rosetti and Cazacu (1961, p. 336) say that the few Turkish elements formerly found in the language of Western Rumania penetrated indirectly either via the old Principalities or through the intermediary of Hungarian. Šăineanu (1900, p. 280) writes that Turkisms penetrated the Banat dialects of Rumanian through a Serbian or Hungarian intermediary — see also ibid., p. 269.
23. I don't know whether any similar phenomena occurred after the arrival and resettlement in Greece in recent years of a large number of Constantinople Greeks.
speak for many Greeks when I say that I learned literally dozens of Turkisms, including greetings, polite formulae, exclamations, and curses, by reading as a child in the 1940's such things as the monologues of Eftalia, an imaginary woman from Smyrna and possibly one of the funniest mahalle karıları (gossips, commères) of all times, and those of Karabet, the Armenian shlimazl,  in the columns of the popular weekly Θησαυρός. There must also have been some plays based, at least partly, on the deviant speech habits of the refugees, but I do not know of any actual instances.
Until now we have been using the term Turkism' almost as if it referred exclusively to loanwords. Although the influence of Turkish on the Balkan languages has indeed been particularly strong in the domain of the lexicon, it was far from restricted to it. In fact, one could almost speak of 'overt' and 'covert' Turkisms, even though there is obviously no well-defined boundary between the two types. It goes without saying that covert Turkisms (and covert foreignisms in general) stand a much better chance of passing undetected by purists.
Overt Turkisms would be essentially the loanwords, but even here one might ask: overt for whom? — cf. Mirčev 1952, p. 127. There are many lexical items whose Turkish origin may or may not be transparent, depending on such things as how educated a given native speaker is, whether or not he has ever dabbled in etymology, whether he knows Turkish and how well, and so on.
Possibly overt Turkisms are the very numerous Balkan idiomatic expressions, greeting formulae, sayings, and proverbs borrowed from Turkish and containing one or more lexical Turkisms — some of the latter are never (or very rarely) used outside of such expressions: cf. Thomaj 1965, pp. 172-173; Dimitrescu 1958, pp. 171-172. However, a considerable number of Turkish idiomatic expressions, formulae, etc. have been wholly translated into native terms, so that few people today would suspect their Turkish origin. Linguists have tended to underestimate the role of Turkish in the creation of the common phraseological
24. Armenian refugees, often monolingual in Turkish upon their arrival in Greece, were an even more favorite target. Besides using a tremendous number of Turkisms in their Greek, they also systematically mistreated Greek grammar and phonology.
stock shared by the Balkan languages  — Jašar-Nasteva 1962-1963, pp. 114 ff. Papahagi (1908) does list the Turkish equivalents of some of his parallele Ausdrücke (e.g., on pp. 145, 154-155), but not nearly often enough. The Yugoslav linguist Olivera Jašar-Nasteva has written a valuable article (1962-1963)  where we find many Macedonian examples of such expressions, formulae, etc., partly or wholly tranlsated from Turkish, neatly classified and supplemented with their equivalents in other Balkan languages. Thus, the Macedonian expression od kade na kade? 'why?, for what reason?, apropos of what?, etc' (literally 'from where to where?') is modelled on Turkish nereden nereye 'for some reason or other; I don't quite know why' (gloss from Hony 1957) — Jašar-Nasteva 1962-1963, p. 143. Cf. also Bulgarian ot kədé nakədé?, Greek ἀπο ποῦ κι ὤς ποῦ; and Rumanian de unde pînă unde?
At least as covert as these so-called "loan-translations"  are the semantic calques (alias "loan-shifts" ), where the meaning of a native word is extended so as to include some secondary meaning of its foreign (here Turkish) counterpart. Thus the Macedonian word pat 'road' has also acquired the meaning 'time' (as in three times, many times), supposedly under the influence of Turkish yol, which means both 'road' and 'time' — Jašar-Nasteva 1962-1963, p. 125; note that Bulgarian pət and Serbocroatian pût behave in exactly the same way.
All those types of Turkisms have left indelible, if mostly unobtrusive, marks on the phraseology and the semantics of the Balkan languages. This does not mean, however, that all of those Turkisms have today the same stylistic value everywhere in the Balkans. Some of them have remained in the dialects or at the level of folk (substandard) speech, or else have been stylistically demoted to it — they are not normally used by speakers of the standard language except to achieve a specific effect,
25. In Sandfeld 1936, p. 471, we read: "il y a aussi en dehors du lexique de très nombreux rapprochements entre elles [les langues balkaniques], LE TURC TOUTEFOIS MIS A PART, souvent aussi le serbo-croate. Il y a d'abord des concordances phraséologiques très frappantes... Pareillement, le sémantisme est très souvent le même partout" (emphasis added).
26. See especially her conclusions (pp. 170-172), which, although they are meant to apply only to Macedonian, are largely valid for the remaining languages as well. It is not always possible to ascertain whether the source of a given item was indeed Turkish — Jašar-Nasteva 1962-1963, p. 118. In some cases it might have been Greek (the other Balkan language with the greatest amount of prestige; Koneski 1965, p. 182) or even some third language, not to mention the possibility of spontaneous parallel creations (Dimitrescu 1958, p. 161).
27. For an excellent discussion of the various types of linguistic borrowing, see Haugen 1950.
28. Haugen 1950, pp. 215, 219-220.
for instance for facetious purposes. An example of a calque on Turkish which has different stylistic values in different languages are the expressions modelled on Turkish tütün içmek 'to smoke', literally 'to drink tobacco' — cf. also sigara içmek 'to smoke a cigarette' and pipo içmek 'to smoke the pipe'. Its Albanian equivalent, pi duhan, is as far as I know the only way to express this particular sense of 'to smoke' in the standard language. In Greek, on the other hand, πίνω τσιγάρο, literally 'to drink cigarette', is substandard: standard speakers say καπνίζω.  Macedonian pie cigari seems to be somewhere in between: Jašar-Nasteva (1962-1963, p. 148) says that LATELY (emphasis added) it is the verb puši 'to smoke' that is used more frequently. The latter probably sounds more 'dignified' and less 'balkanoid' to educated Macedonians ('balkanoid' in the sense of semi-Oriental, backward, etc.), a process which Greek may have also gone through at some earlier stage.
Before we return to loanwords and try to make some generalizations on the stylistic categories to which they belong, let us examine some other vestiges of Turkish linguistic influence on the Balkan languages.
Let us begin with the domain of grammar. Any influence that Turkish may have had on the grammar of the Balkan languages is covert. We probably still know too little to be able to ascertain the extent of that influence — Skok 1937-1938, p. 170. There is, however, general agreement that the impact of Turkish on the domains of morphology and syntax was much less significant than its impact on the lexicon — Sandfeld 1930, p. 159; Hazai 1961, p. 102. The most frequently cited instance of Turkish grammatical influence in the Balkans is that of the development of the category of 'reportedness' in the verbal system of some forms of East South Slavic, including standard Bulgarian and standard Macedonian — Bernstein 1968, p. 78; Gołąb 1959, p. 34; Hazai 1961, p. 102; Koneski 1965, p. 147; Mirčev 1952, p. 118; and 1963, pp. 83-84.  These two languages, just like Turkish, distinguish between processes
29. This is obviously calqued on Western European: French fumer, Italian fumare (cf. also folksy Greek ϕουμάρω and ϕουμέρνω, German rauchen, English to smoke, etc. Cf. also Bulgarian puša and Serbocroatian pȕ šiti.
30. Mirčev (1952, p. 118) and Koneski (1965, pp. 146-148) also mention some other, less important, instances of possible Turkish grammatical influence on Bulgarian and Macedonian, respectively. Koneski (ibid.) also mentions that the same grammatical category is found at an embryonic stage also in some Albanian city dialects (in Macedonia?), where the influence of Turkish has been strongest.
directly perceived (witnessed) by the speaker and processes not so perceived. Here are some examples. In Bulgarian, Pétər e otišel v xotéla 'Peter went into the hotel' contrasts with Pétər otíšel v xotéla 'Peter went into the hotel (so I'm told)' — Hodge et al, p. 137. In Macedonian, the difference between beše 'he was' and bil 'he reportedly was' is shown very clearly in the following example from Lunt 1952 (p. 93): Toj beše vo Skopje — odnosno bil, ne go vidov 'he was in Skopje — that is, he's supposed to have been there, I didn't see him'. Similarly in Turkish: Ankaraya gidiyor 'he's going to Ankara' versus Ankaraya gidiyormuş 'he's going to Ankara (he says/they say)' — Swift and Agrah 1966, p. 202.
If it is true, as it most probably is, that it was Turkish that served as the model for Bulgarian and Macedonian in this respect, then we have here a remarkable instance of linguistic influence, one that presupposes widespread bilingualism at some time in the past and which will surely prove to be one of the most durable marks left by Turkish on the Balkan languages.
Turkish influence on the sound system of the standard Balkan languages has been minimal.  The main vestiges left by Turkish on standard Balkan phonology are indirect ones, namely an increase in the frequency of occurrence of some sounds, such as the sound [dʒ͡]  in Albanian, Rumanian, and the South Slavic languages with which we are concerned. That happened because those languages adopted Turkish words and suffixes containing that sound.  Rumanian, of course, already had that sound in words inherited from Latin, such as ginere 'son-in-law', genunchi 'knee', a trage 'to pull', etc. But not even for the other languages would it be correct to say that [dʒ͡] was first introduced along with Turkish lexical elements. It already occurred in all those languages as a voiced positional variant of the sound [ t ʃ ͡],  as the result of voicing assimilation :
31. Not so in some dialects — cf., for example, Ivić 1958, pp. 117, 234, 242-243, and Koneski 1965, pp. 56-57, 72, 78.
32. Other common symbols used for the voiced palato-alveolar affricate are [ǯ], [ǰ], and [dǯ͡].
33. Turkish also helped spread the sound [f] in Balkan Slavic, but in this it was preceded by Greek and also by other languages — Koneski 1965, p. 68; Ivić 1958, p. 117.
34. Other common symbols used for the voiceless palato-alveolar affricate are [č] and [ t š͡ ].
for instance, Bulgarian ličba (pronounced [lídʒ͡ba]) 'sign; symptom', Macedonian naradžba 'order' (cf. Koneski 1965, p. 50), Serbocroatian òtadžbina 'fatherland, home country', Albanian xhvesh (pronounced [dʒ͡veʃ]) 'I undress' (ç- 'un-, de-' plus vesh 'I dress'; cf. lidh 'I tie' and çlidh 'I untie', mobilizim 'mobilization' and çmobilizim 'demobilization', etc.).
The dialects on which standard Modern Greek is based lack palato-alveolar consonants — like [ʃ], [ t ʃ ͡], [dʒ͡], etc. Such sounds are generally replaced in loanwords by their alveolar counterparts. To the [ʒd͡] of Albanian xham, Bulgarian and Macedonian džam, Rumanian geam, and Serbocroatian džȁm, corresponds the [dz͡]  of Greek τζάμι (Turkish cam 'glass'). Thus in the case of Greek it was the frequency of the ALVEOLAR voiced affricate which increased as a result of the importation of Turkish elements into the language.
Similarly, the adoption in Albanian and Bulgarian of a great many Turkish words containing the vowel ı (which ranges from [ɯ] to [ɨ]) increased the frequency of the schwa ([ə]) in those two languages — [ə] is spelled ë and ъ in Albanian and Bulgarian respectively. (I am grateful to E. P. Hamp for this remark.) The same could be said of the frequency of Rumanian î [ɨ], which is phonetically quite close to Turkish ı.
A domain where the passage of the Turks through the Balkans has left deep marks is that of names, both anthroponyms and toponyms. As far as personal names go, we shall be concerned only with family names (surnames). Given names are often of a rather ephemeral nature and tend to change with fashions — and, besides, given names of Turkish origin are found almost exclusively among Balkan Moslems. On the other hand, we find a great many surnames of Turkish origin even among the Christian population. As a rule, such names consist of a Turkish root accompanied by one or more native suffixes : for example, Albanian Kazazi (Turkish kaz(z)az 'silk manufacturer'), Bulgarian Terziev (Turkish terzi 'tailor'), Greek Ζορμπάς (Turkish zorba 'who uses force; rebel; bully'), Macedonian Džambazov (Turkish cambaz 'acrobat; circus-rider; horsedealer; swindler'), Rumanian Ceauşescu (Turkish çavuş 'sergeant; doorkeeper; messenger; uniformed attendant (of an ambassador or consul)'), Serbian Čorović (Turkish kör 'blind') — see also Boissin 1965, pp. 181-182.
35. Another common symbol for that sound is |ʒ|.
Some Balkan surnames were originally compounds whose first member is a Turkish word (by now very close to being a Balkan 'prefix') like hacı 'one who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca (or to the Holy Land, as in the case of Christians); hadji; pilgrim', kara 'black; gloomy; ill-omened', deli 'crazy; wild', and perhaps a few others: for example, Albanian Haxhihasani, Serbian Karađordević, Macedonian Xadživasilev, Greek Χατζηχρῆστος and Ντεληγιάννης — Ντελη- has very often been 'hellenized' into Δελη-; see below.
Turkish surnames being overt evidence of foreign linguistic and cultural influence, many of them did not escape the 'hellenizing' tendencies which began in Greece already at the beginning of the 19th century — Triantaphyllidēs 1963b, p. 267. Thus, names like Μπεκρῆς (Turkish bekri 'habitual drunkard'), Μπέης (Turkish bey 'gentleman, etc.'), Σαρίπογλου (Turkish şarib 'hopeless drunkard' and oǧlu 'son of, -son'), were often changed into Βεκρῆς, Βέης, Σαρίπολος.
Then there are the numerous Turkish place-names. Those would normally be rather durable vestiges of Turkish influence or sometimes even of actual Turkish settlements, were it not for the fact that toponyms change so often — Kissling 1965, p. 141.  Thus, a Bulgarian village to which Evliya Çelebi refers as Rumlar ('Greeks' in Turkish) is called today Gərci ('Greeks' in Bulgarian) — ibid., p. 142. In the case of Greece specifically, the hellenization of Turkish and other foreign place-names assumed gigantic proportions — Triantaphyllidēs 1938, pp. 570-579, 595-596; Georgacas and McDonald 1967, pp. 10-11.
Some Turkish names for places outside the Balkans had also been adopted in certain Balkan languages. I hope I am not making too sweeping a generalization when I say that most of those seem to have disappeared by now from the standard variety of each language. Thus the present range of Greek Μισίρι 'Egypt' (Turkish Misir) is very restricted: we may find it, for example, in folk tales and folk songs, both traditional and of the ρεμπέτικο (bouzouki) type, or in artistic literature, both prose and poetry, for instance when a writer wishes to create an atmosphere of the past or to convey the idea of exoticity — the historical
36. Kissling (1965, p. 129, n. 7) writes: "Eine Betrachtung der Ortsnamen der europäischen Türkei unter unserem Gesichtswinkel ergibt die bezeichnende Tatsache, daß, von den durchislamisierten bosnisch-herzegovinischen Gebieten abgesehen, die türkischen bzw. türkisierten Namen gegen Westen zu mehr und mehr abnehmen. Der serbische Raum hat seine slavischen Namensformen weitgehend behalten. Das gleiche gilt für die griechischen und ungarischen Gebiete, die ebenfalls ihre alten Ortsnamen überwiegend bewahrt haben. In diesen Gebieten Südosteuropas dürfen die Ortsnamen die tatsächlich Türkisierungstiefe andeuten, die dort nur gering war."
and poetic term Μισίρι certainly sounds more exotic and possibly even more distant in space than its stylistically neutral counterpart, Αἴγυπτος. In Albanian, I think, things are a bit different, at least in Moslem usage. Although the neologism Egjipti is probably more common today, one still hears educated speakers refer to Misir. As far as I can tell, the same can be said of the pair Aleksandri/Skënderi 'Alexandria' (Turkish İskenderiye).
In all Balkan languages, a number of Turkish suffixes were isolated from loanwords and began to be used with non-Turkish stems.  With few exceptions, it was essentially the same Turkish suffixes that became productive in all the languages. The most important of these suffixes were probably -ci (/ci/cü/cu/çi/çı/çü/çu), -li (/lı/lü/lu), and -lik (/lik/lük/luk).  We are often told either that these suffixes have acquired a deprecating overtone,  or that their use in a given standard language is today limited,  or that they are no longer productive.  True as such statements mostly are, we would still like to know a bit more about the fate of each suffix in each individual language, before we can begin to make generalizations about all the Balkan languages. For example, in an important article (1958, pp. 59-60), Werner Bahner shows clearly how contradictory the reports given by various Rumanian linguists can be, when it comes to deciding whether or not the suffix -giu (Turkish -ci) is still productive in Rumanian.
One obvious way of trying to fill the many gaps in our knowledge would be to do for each suffix in each language what Bahner did for the
37. This is a case of lexical, not grammatical, borrowing — Deroy 1956, pp. 73, 77. Cf. also Šăineanu 1900, p. 52. The Balkan languages must have first borrowed a number of Turkish nouns ending, say, in the suffix -ci, before they finally isolated that suffix and in their turn created new formations, with -ci attached to non-Turkish stems, as in Albanian karrocaxhi 'cabman, coachman', Rumanian laptagiu 'milkman', Serbo-croatian govòrdžija 'chatterer, babbler', etc. Even so we cannot always be sure that the new words are entirely original: in some cases they may be partial translations ("loan-blends": Haugen 1950, pp. 215, 218-219) of a Turkish model.
38. The suffixes are given here in their Turkish forms, including the Turkish variants whose use depends on vowel harmony or voicing assimilation. For the sake of simplicity, I will henceforth refer to Turkish suffixes by their high front (voiced) variant, namely -lik, -li, and -ci.
39. Graur 1967, p. 65. It is only fair to mention, though, that, apropos of the suffix -giu (Turkish -cí). Graur exempts "a few trade names such as cazangui ‘boiler’smith’" from such a characterization.
40. Mirčev 1952, p. 118.
41. Stachowski 1961, pp. 27, 56.
suffix -giu in Rumanian. He examined the productivity of that suffix in each of its main functions: his conclusion was that -giu is productive in contemporary Rumanian only as a pejorative suffix, although even in that function there had not been, as of 1958, any new formations for some time — Bahner 1958, p. 63.
An impressionistic judgment (faute de mieux) on the state of affairs in Greek would yield very similar results — see also Triantaphyllidēs 1963a, pp. 91-94. To the extent that it is at all productive, the suffix -τζής (Turkish -ci) is productive only in its function as a pejorative suffix.  The same is true of the suffix –λίκι (Turkish -lik), except that the latter is definitely productive in my own idiolect. It helps form nouns referring to different official posts or functions, and it always has a mildly ironical overtone. Here are some of the new formations with - λίκι that I have used in recent years: κοσμητοριλίκι 'deanship', ἐπιμελητιλίκι 'assistantship', and the Anglo-Turco-Hellenic hybrids ἀσισταντ(ι)λίκι (ditto) and τσε(α)ρμαν(ι)λίκι 'chairmanship'. On the other hand, the suffix –λής (Turkish -li) appears to be non-productive in the contemporary standard language.
Mirčev (1952, p. 118) says that derivatives with the suffixes -džija and -lək (Turkish -ci and --lik) in Bulgarian have now a definitely ironical, derisive, or pejorative connotation. Standing on Bahner's shoulders as we are, we may wonder whether the 'real' meaning of that statement is not that the situation in Bulgarian is the same as in Rumanian and Greek: at least in the case of -džija, maybe the only function of the suffix that strikes the Bulgarian observer is its more or less productive one, which also happens to be its pejorative one. For when we look at Bulgarian -džija as a suffix forming nomina agentis referring to traditional trades (Berufe, not Ämter), we find a good number of nouns that do not, as far as I know, have the least pejorative shade of meaning: bojadžija 'dyer; house-painter', xandžija 'inn-keeper; landlord; host', xalvadžija 'manufacturer of halvah; dealer in halvah', kafedžija 'owner/keeper of a coffeehouse',  džamdžija 'glazier', and so on. Incidentally, Professor Boris
42. I am not aware, however, of any new formations with τζης in recent years. Concerning the potentially pejorative nature of -ci in Turkish, see Bahner 1958, p. 60, and Spitzer 1936, pp. 124-125.
43. Bahner (1958, pp. 62-63) says this about the corresponding Rumanian word, cafegiu: "Es bedeutet heute nur noch 'leidenschaftlicher Kaffeetrinker', d.h., -giu gibt den Träger einer besonderen Gewohneit an, indem es zugleich etwas negativ, abfällig wertet. Sowohl die ursprüngliche ... Bedeutung ... 'Eigentümer eines Cafés' [ist] durch die gesellschaftliche Entwicklung untergegangen ... mit der Errichtung der volksdemokratischen Ordnung nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg." Cf. the largely similar development of Bulgarian tjutjundžija, reported in Bronsert 1968, p. 97.
Kremenliev of the University of California at Los Angeles, a native speaker of Bulgarian, insists that -džija is still productive in Bulgarian, albeit with an ironical etc. connotation. He cited the recent (American Bulgarian?) formation kompjuterdžíja 'computerologist' and he kept referring to this writer jokingly as balkandžíja 'balkanologist'.
Stachowski (1961, pp. 27, 43, 56) says with respect to the suffixes -džija, -lija, and -luk in Serbocroatian that none of them is productive in the contemporary language, whereas Professor Pavle Ivić tells me that this is not true of -džija, which in his view is still productive but again with an ironical etc. connotation.
For Macedonian, we are fortunate to have in Markov 1955 a fairly detailed study of what he calls "hybrid creations" (xibridni tvorbi; "loan-blends" in Haugen 1950, pp. 215, 218-219), namely combinations of originally Turkish suffixes with non-Turkish stems, as in gotovadžija 'seller of ready-made clothes' (cf. Turkish hazırcı), vojniklak 'military service' (Turkish askerlık), bradalija 'bearded man' (Turkish sakallı). Markov's verdict (1955, p. 158) is that all suffixes of Turkish origin have ceased to be productive in Macedonian, whereas Koneski, ten years later (1965, p. 189), writes that both -džija and -lak are productive in the contemporary language, but that new formations with them, like filmadžija and festivaldžija, have a derisive, ironical, etc. overtone.
Unfortunately, I have no information on whether or not these suffixes are still productive in Albanian.
But we are not merely concerned with the question of how productive these suffixes are in the different languages. We would also like to know something about the status of the words which end in them. The one synchronie study available to me which tries to deal with that question is Markov 1955. Let us try to see whether we can make some tentative generalizations about all the Balkan languages on the basis of Markov's conclusions with respect to Macedonian. In his view, the suffixes in question are both better represented and more frequent in the colloquial language (vo razgovorniot jazik) and the dialects than they are in the literary language (vo literaturniot jazik) — 1955, pp. 154, 157, 159, and passim.
It is important to point out that the colloquial language constantly referred to by Markov is by no means necessarily opposed to what we have called "the standard language", namely the speech of educated persons, which also includes colloquial styles — cf. p. 88, above. Note further that if Markov had wanted to exclude the STANDARD colloquial he could have used some other term, such as "popular/folk language",
as does Koneski: vo našiot naroden jazik (1965, p. 101 and passim) — see also some relevant remarks in Dimitrescu 1958, p. 149. But perhaps Markov's "literary language" and our "standard language" are not coterminous: maybe his use of "literary language" excludes the colloquial (or familiar, or casual) ranges of what we have called "standard language" — it may not be entirely fortuitous that, in an otherwise descriptive article, Markov also indulges in some prescriptive suggestions (1955, p. 161).
We can therefore venture the statement that the Macedonian situation is probably a miniature copy of what is going on in the remaining languages too: words formed with the suffixes -ci, -li, and -lik are particularly frequent in colloquial speech, but are frowned upon in more elevated spoken and written styles.  There are of course exceptions: in some instances, such words are perfectly good, stylistically neutral elements of even the literary language. It seems to me that Albanian budallallëk is a case in point. The Fjalor anglisht-shqip (1966) lists it as the only gloss under the entry stupidity (although I think that the non-Turkism marrëzi would have also been correct), just as it lists only budalla (Turkish budala 'silly fool; imbecile') under stupid. On the other hand, it is most likely that the present trend will continue in all languages: as the new terms from the literary language penetrate the lower styles of the standard colloquial (through books, the press, radio, etc.), more words with those Turkish suffixes will become obsolete or else will be stylistically demoted. Some types of words will probably be spared such a fate, for instance those which refer to traditional trades — provided of course the trades themselves survive: cf. Bahner 1958, pp. 62-63. As a rule, the literary language does not bother with ϕαναρτζῆδες (plural of Greek ϕαναρτζής 'lamp-maker; tinsmith') or with παγωτατζῆδες (plural of παγωτατζής 'ice-cream vendor'), except in some legal or administrative documents, which have little impact on the spoken standard. Other words likely to be spared obsolescence for some time are those dealing with everyday notions, such as human types, like Greek καταϕερτζής 'one with a knack of succeeding', μερακλής 'one who demands and relishes the best; one who loves to do a job well' (Turkish meraklı 'curious; interested in, fond of; anxious') — both these words belong to the lowest ranges of the
44. We may mention parenthetically that Macedonian, because of well-known historical reasons, appears to have still a great number of words (straight loanwords as well as loanblends) with the suffixes in question — greater, say, than standard Athenian Greek. At least that is my impression after reading Markov (1955) and Koneski (1965 and 1966).
standard colloquial. The literary language is not usually concerned with these either, so any alternatives it may propose for them will probably remain at the more elevated stylistic levels, to which such terms do not belong anyway.
Our last task will be to examine surviving Turkish loanwords in the Balkan languages from the viewpoint of their present stylistic status. In the first place we find those Turkisms which have become fully naturalized (Skok 1935, p. 252; Škaljić 1966, p. 15) in the various languages and which are stylistically neutral. By "stylistically neutral" we mean that they can be used in any spoken or written style without giving any clues as to the speaker's or writer's social background or level of education, and also without betraying any intention on his part to achieve a specific stylistic effect, such as irony, contempt, humor, exoticity, solemnity, and the like. In the case of nouns, those Turkisms refer mostly, but not exclusively, to concrete objects,  such as the various words which reflect Turkish çanta 'bag; case; valise; knapsack',  çorab 'stocking',  and kibrit 'match'  — but cf. also Rumanian duşman 'enemy' (Turkish düşman) and leafă 'salary' (Turkish ulûfe '(formerly) the pay of a soldier for the fodder of his horse').
Škaljić (1966, p. 15) divides such words into those for which there exist other alternatives in a given language and those for which there are no such alternatives.  For example, čàrapa is the only word for 'stocking' in standard Serbocroatian, whereas òdžak 'chimney' (Turkish ocak) has
45. This category of nouns is by no means restricted to such things as are specifically Turco-Oriental, such as some dishes, kitchen utensils, musical instruments, and the like — for examples, see Škaljić 1966, p. 15.
46. Albanian çantë, Bulgarian čanta, Greek τσαντα, Macedonian čanta, Rumanian geantă. These do not always cover exactly the same semantic range, but the basic idea is everywhere the same.
47. Albanian çorap, Bulgarian čoráp, Macedonian čorap, Rumanian ciorap, Serbo-Croatian čarapa. Some of these words mean 'sock' rather than 'stocking'.
48. Bulgarian kibrít, Macedonian kibrit, Rumanian chibrit.
49. Sometimes the 'standard' Serbocroatian equivalents of loanwords are, according to Bidwell (1968, p. 403), "bookish words not used (or perhaps not even known) by many indisputably standard speakers (e.g. smočnica 'pantry' for špajza). This points up the fact mentioned by Magner (52) that, in many semantic spheres of everyday life, Serbo-Croatian simply lacks a standard vocabulary in common use; the various regional colloquial koines use items (usually from German, Italian, Turkish, or Greek) rejected for one or another reason by the puristic normativists".
at least one synonym in the standard language, namely dı̏mnjāk — this does not necessarily mean that the territorial domains of these two words coincide exactly. That so many Turkisms without synonyms can be found in the basic vocabulary of the Balkan languages is a further indication of the strong and durable nature of Turkish linguistic influence.
Although the list of such nouns is largely the same for each language, there are sporadic differences from one language to another. I shall give here some examples of how Greek differs from some of the other languages. Contrary to what is going on in the other languages, τσο(υ)ράπι (Turkish çorab) is not one hundred percent stylistically neutral in Greek. When it is used to refer to manufactured stockings or socks, this is always done ironically or with contempt. But even when it is used to refer to homemade peasant woollen stockings there is often an overtone of irony or contempt — after all city-dwellers consider themselves 'better' than villagers; cf. the derivative τσουράπης in Athenian slang, meaning 'peasant lout, uncouth peasant' (χωριάτησμ ἄχεστος, — Dagkitsēs 1967b). There are of course also contexts where τσο(υ)ράπι is free of negative overtones. Such are, for instance, the contexts which we can call "historical" and "ethnographic". To give an example of the latter kind, in a sentence like Κατεβαίνουν οἱ Σαρακατσάνισσες, μέ τά πολύχρωμα τσουράπια τους, μέ ... 'the Sarakatsan women are coming down, with their multicolored woollen stockings, with ...', describing the attire of nomadic shepherd women, the word τσουράπια sounds more 'authentic' than its stylistically neutral counterpart, κάλτσες.
Thus what is a stylistically marked Turkism in one language may sometimes be stylistically neutral in another. This occasionally causes misunderstandings of an ethnocentric nature. One sometimes hears Greeks say things like : Do you know how they say κάλτσες in Bulgarian? Τσουράπια. That clearly makes the Greeks more refined than the uncouth, backward, 'balkanoid' Bulgarians who use such peasant words as their normal ones. The Bulgarians could retort, of course, by pointing out that, in the case of the word meaning 'stove (for room heating)', it is the Greeks who are being backward, etc. : Greek uses σόμπα (Turkish soba 'stove; hothouse'), whereas standard Bulgarian has péčka in that meaning, the Turkism sóba being dialectal — at least according to RBE.
Sometimes, what is a stylistically neutral word in one language does not even exist in the contemporary standard variety of some other language. A case in point is Turkish düşman 'enemy', whose reflex duşman is one of the three common words for 'enemy' in Rumanian (the other two being vrăjmaş and the neologism inamic), but which is not
represented at all in standard Greek — there is a surname Δούσμανης, though.
Until now we have mentioned only nouns as examples of stylistically neutral Turkisms. Although nouns are undoubtedly by far more numerous, we also find a number of adjectives, some verbs, and even a few adverbs and grammatical words: for instance, Rumanian murdar 'dirty' (Turkish murdar, mırdar), Bulgarian bojadísvam 'to color; to paint; to dye' (Turkish boya 'dye; paint; color', boyamak 'to paint; to dye'), Macedonian bare and barem and Serbocroatian bâr and bȁrem 'at least' (Turkish bari),  Bulgarian čak and Serbocroatian čȁk 'even; as far as; until' (Turkish çak).
Before turning to stylistically marked Turkisms, I think we ought to mention a peculiarity of Greek in connection with stylistically neutral ones. When we refer to standard Modern Greek, we mean the spoken and written language of educated people speaking and writing demotic (δημοτική). So, when we say that παπούτσι 'shoe' (Turkish papuç, pabuç 'shoe; slipper') is stylistically neutral, we do not necessarily mean thereby that it would also be acceptable in katharevousa. The boundary between demotic and katharevousa is at best a very fluid one, but there are plenty of clear-cut cases: anyone saying or writing ὑποδήματα 'shoes' for παπούτσια is unmistakably using a lexical element from katharevousa — demotic has borrowed a very large number of words from katharevousa,  but ὑπόδημα is not one of them, in the sense that it cannot be used as one of the normal words for 'shoe' in demotic.
At the other extreme from stylistically neutral words, we find Turkisms belonging to the category of 'historical' or 'obsolete' or at best 'poetic' words. Here belong of course the terms which we have called 'administrative' Turkisms, but also some other types of words. Let us have a brief look at one broad semantic domain which was not left undisturbed by the official language, namely that of warfare — taken here in its broadest possible sense, and including not only weaponry, but also clothing, horsemanship, and the like.
50. Čakalov et al. 1961 labels Bulgarian báre (sic for baré) as "colloquial", and so does Ilkov et al. 1960 with baré and barém. Mirčev (1952, p. 126) says that it is used in the literary language, but most of the time with a particular stylistic tinge (v osobena stilna okraska).
51. In reading contemporary expository prose, written in either demotic or katharevousa, we often notice that the majority of the lexical items used are shared by both variants of Modern Greek, the main differences between them being in the morphology and to a lesser extent in the syntax. We are speaking of course of relatively simple (ἁπλή) katharevousa, not of atticizing styles — which are extremely rare nowadays
'The times of the Turks' were also heroic times. Many of the Turkish words that had to do with the conduct of warfare evoke in the minds of Balkan readers and listeners an era when 'fearless' haidouks and klephts were fighting against 'the hated Turk'. The role of epic folk songs in this set of associations can hardly be overestimated — Skok 1935, p. 255, and 1937-1938, p. 174; Škaljić 1966, p. 16; Triantaphyllidēs 1963a, p. 62. When modern writers and orators try to recapture some of the heroic atmosphere of those days, it is often from the folk songs that they draw their (largely Turkish) epic vocabulary — consciously or unconsciously. Thus, in the right context, a word like ἄτι 'steed, stallion' (Turkish at 'horse'), which is at best poetic if not outright historical in standard Greek,  is far more effective than the stylistically neutral and therefore colorless ἄλογο.
Official Balkan military terminology has of course replaced a good number of Turkisms. But the latter did not all become historical words thereby. 'Gunpowder' is still called μπαρούτι (Turkish barut) in standard Greek, despite the rehellenized official term πυρῖτις of katharevousa.  The same is true of the word for 'rifle', τουϕέκι (Turkish tüfek), with respect to the 'hellenized' katharevousa form τυϕέκιον — see Triantaphyllidēs 1963a, pp. 62-64, 131. In the other Balkan languages, where there has been purism but not diglossia (Ferguson 1959), some Turkish terms were adopted (without changes) in the official military terminology. Examples are Albanian top 'gun, cannon' (Turkish top), barut, fishek 'cartridge' (Turkish fişek),  saçmë (or saçmá) 'small shot' (Turkish saçma), Bulgarian barút, kuršúm 'lead; bullet' (Turkish kurşun 'lead; bullet; lead seal'), fišék, sačmí, top (Mirčev 1952, p. 125), Serbocroatian bárut, sàčma, tȍp.
Since the scope of this paper is restricted to the standard languages, we should not, strictly speaking, deal with Turkisms whose range is limited to popular (alias 'folk') speech.  However, because of the
52. I make this claim in spite of the fact that I have yet to see a Modern Greek dictionary attach a stylistic label to that word. For other examples, see Triantaphyllidēs 1963a, p. 62.
53. The ultimate origin of barut is supposed to have been Greek πυρῖτις — Andriōtēs 1967, s.v. μπαρούτι; Triantaphyllidēs 1963a, p. 131.
54. In Greek, ϕισέκι was 'hellenized' into ϕυσίγγιον — Triantaphyllidēs 1963a, p. 131. The latter term has penetrated demotic and has caused ϕισέκι to be somewhat demoted stylistically.
55. These terms, as used here, do not include the rural dialects. They refer rather to what Haugen (1966, p. 32) has called "urban substandard": "spoken by artisans and working-class people, varying from city to city, but showing many characteristics in common with the surrounding rural dialects". I am not sure that the last reference to "the surrounding rural dialects" is always pertinent as far as the Balkans go.
quantitative importance ofthat subgroup of Turkisms, and also because of the impact it has on the standard language, we shall devote a few remarks to it. Balkan folk speech is extremely rich in Turkisms — Hristea 1958; Koneski 1965, pp. 101-102, 186ff.; Şăineanu 1900, p. 256. One need only leaf through the dictionaries by K. Dagkitsēs (1967a and 1967b) and B. Kapetanakēs (1962) to be convinced that this is at least the case in Greek. When Mirčev (1952, p. 126) says that the use of Turkisms in Bulgarian gives a vulgar shade to speech, he is really stating a pan-Balkan truth, provided we make it clear that it is the folksy Turkisms of substandard speech that we have in mind and not at all the stylistically neutral ones of the standard language. Of equally pan-Balkan validity is also Mirčev's assertion that Turkisms are numerous in slangy (argot) styles, as well as in the jargon used by school children and students,  but again with the same proviso. The use of such Turkisms is regarded by adolescents (as well as by some adults) as 'manly'. I don't know whether this is because they associate Turkisms with the physically stronger and in their behavior more forthright manual laborers — whom young people of other backgrounds often envy secretly. But the fact remains that popular Turkisms contrast sharply with the supposedly somewhat effete 'Frankish' (in the case of Greek, also exaggeratedly Hellenic)  way of speaking.
I don't pretend to know exactly where the boundary lies between so-called 'popular' language and the more familiar ranges of the standard colloquial. But we know that standard speakers often cross that boundary, for instance when they are completely uninhibited, in good spirits and among intimate friends, and so on — see the short but excellent discussion in Dagkitsēs 1967b, p. 6. In Greece, the ρεμπέτικα type of songs, sung at bouzouki joints and heard over the radio, have been instrumental in spreading substandard Turkisms, so that many standard speakers at least know what they mean. One Turkism that I personally learned in that fashion is σεβντάς 'love, heartache' (Turkish sevda 'melancholy; spleen; passion, love; intense longing'). The writings of humorists or other writers describing le milieu (the underworld) are also important sources of diffusion for this category of Turkisms — Dagkitsēs 1967b, p. 6; see also Mirčev 1952, p. 126.
56. Ibid. He goes on to make the prediction that the use of Turkisms in Bulgarian will be further restricted as "the linguistic culture" (ezikovata kultura) of the Bulgarian people increases. Cf. also Andrejčin et al. (1964, p. 131) who urge Bulgarian teachers to fight against slang.
57. Cf. the notion of ἑλληνικούρα, which Ioannidis (1961) aptly translates into Russian as nenúžnyj arxaízm.
Just below the level of stylistically neutral Turkisms and above those belonging to the folk language, are the Turkisms of the standard colloquial. The emergence of new, more prestigious, and supposedly more dignified words has reduced a number of formerly stylistically neutral Turkisms to the status of colloquial words. Many of the latter refer to abstract notions, others to concrete objects. They are used by educated speakers in relaxed or at least unguarded situations, but are avoided in more elevated styles. Such are, for example, Albanian bela, Bulgarian beljá, Greek μπελάς, Macedonian belja,  and Serbocroatian bèlāj  (Turkish belâ), all of them roughly meaning 'trouble, nuisance, misfortune, difficulty, etc.' Words belonging to this category are so to speak mots du coeur — again an indication of how deeply entrenched some Turkish elements have become in those languages. When an educated Greek describes a quarrel to his family and friends, it is a καβγάς (Turkish kavga 'tumult; brawl, quarrel; fight; battle') — only when making a police report, or appearing before a magistrate, or the like, is he likely to refer to it as a ϕιλονικεία. The latter word, which has undoubtedly helped demote καβγάς to the level of colloquial words, is felt as somehow impersonal, uninvolved, overly 'objective'. In other words, the stylistic demotions which many Turkisms have suffered through the pressure of other words have not necessarily endangered their existence as part and parcel of the standard language.
Occasionally, however, the pressure from above has proved to be too much for some Turkisms. The competition of new and more prestigious synonyms forced them into some negative connotative category, such as ironical, derisive, or pejorative. Thus, what were probably once normal, that is stylistically neutral, words are today loaded with mischief and causticity. Here we find verbs, adjectives, and nouns — many of the latter abstract ones. Because of their often elevated semantic content, such abstract nouns etc. were mostly replaced in educated speech and writing: the Balkan intelligentsia wanted to break at any price with the patriarchal past, which it regarded as semi-barbarous and backward. Consequently, the only stylistic domains left to such Turkisms were rather low ones. It was probably this very discrepancy between elevated semantic content and low stylistic status that caused them to acquire
58. Labelled as "colloquial" in RMJ. The same dictionary labels as "archaic" the variant form belaj.
59. Škaljić 1966, p. 16. Rumanian belea probably belongs here as well, but as I found it nowhere accompanied by a stylistic label, it may possibly be stylistically neutral.
pejorative, ironical, etc. overtones.  Thus, the once stylistically unmarked Bulgarian verb kurtulisvam se, now meaning 'to get rid (of)' (Turkish kurtulmak 'to escape; be saved; slip out; [of a pregnant woman] to be delivered'), reportedly has today an ironical and derisive connotation, which is lacking from its Slavic counterpart, spasjávam se 'to save oneself; escape' — Mirčev 1952, p. 126. The same is true of Bulgarian fukará 'poor, penniless' and Greek ϕουκαράς 'poor chap' (Turkish fukara, fıkara 'poor; the poor; pauper') vis-à-vis the stylistically unmarked words béden (ibid.) and ϕτωχός, respectively.
Nouns referring to concrete objects were not spared either. We get an idea of what must have happened to some of them, when we read the following passage on Rumanian: "words borrowed from neighbouring languages were often eliminated deliberately, under the impact of the fashion which wanted everything to come from the West. Such words as han 'inn' (Turkish han), birt 'alehouse', suliman  'make-up', macat 'blanket', etc. were replaced by hotel, restaurant, fard, cuvertură. At a certain moment it became difficult to sell a merchandise under its old name, which had begun to characterize rustic varieties,  or junk, whereas under their French name the same commodities could be sold at higher prices" — Graur 1967, p. 56.
There has certainly been a considerable decrease in the number of Turkish loanwords throughout the Balkans during the past one hundred years or so. Although Turkisms are rather common in the standard colloquial, there are other styles, such as expository prose, where they hardly ever occur.  As to the Turkish suffixes adopted into the various languages, those are certainly not very productive today, except perhaps for producing a comical or pejorative effect — both of which functions
60. Şăineanu (1900) has some masterful passages on the role of Turkisms (and often of Hellenisms as well) in Rumanian folk humor and humoristic literature, and on the funny situations created by the tensions of the transitional period, in the 19th century, between the semi-Oriental past and the 'European' future — pp. 68-69, 256-257, 278-279. See also Bronsert 1968, p. 95 and passim.
61. DLRM gives as the source of suliman the Turkish word sülümen, which Hony 1957 glosses as "corrosive sublimate".
62. Something similar must have happened to Greek τσο(υ)ράπι — see p. 107, above.
63. This is not true of all the languages to the same extent. E.g., Albanian strikes me as having a slightly greater number of Turkisms in expository prose than does, say, Greek.
should not be dismissed as unimportant, by the way. All the same, I cannot agree with Krajni (1965, p. 151) when he says that there are only a few Turkisms still left in Albanian and that even those will be reduced to a minimum. I don't think this can be said of any Balkan language as yet — much less of Albanian. Let us for a moment disregard the not-so-few lexical Turkisms which are either stylistically neutral or else belong to the lexical stock of the standard colloquial. And let us also leave aside the traces which Turkish has left on the grammar of East South Slavic, on the toponymy and anthroponymy of the entire area, on the stock of idiomatic expressions, on the semantic content of many words, and so on. Even so, that is even if we limit ourselves to the stylistically most marked Turkish loanwords and the by now allegedly mostly unproductive Turkish suffixes, we still have a lot of Turkisms left in the Balkans. The stylistically marked Turkisms have enriched the expressive and stylistic potential of every Balkan language — Krajni 1965, pp. 149, 151; Stojkov 1952, pp. 169-170; Triantaphyllidēs 1963a, pp. 112-114. Some of them have pejorative overtones, others are labelled as ironical or derisive, some carry the epic overtones typical of certain historical words, still others are characterized as vulgar. All of those connotative shades are used for stylistic effect by Balkan speakers and writers — Mirčev 1952, p. 124; Škaljić 1966, p. 16; Şăineanu 1900, pp. 256-257.
Some lexical Turkisms, of all stylistic categories, constitute more or less large derivational families, which may have been an additional factor in their survival and vitality — Skok 1935, p. 252; Bronsert 1968, p. 110. For example, Bulgarian rezíl 'shame, disgrace' (Turkish rezil 'ville, base; disreputable ; disgraced ; scoundrel'), reziljá ' to hold up to disgrace, to be a disgrace to', reziljá se 'to bring shame/disgrace on oneself, and Greek ρεζίλι '(object of) ridicule/shame', ρεζιλίκι (ditto), ρεζιλης 'ridiculous/ ludicrous fellow', ρεζιλεύω 'to make ridiculous; humiliate', ρεζιλεύομαι 'to bring shame on oneself; to become ridiculous; to be humiliated'. Other loanwords which have a very good chance of surviving for a long time are those stylistically neutral ones which have entered the basic vocabulary of a given language, that is those which refer to concepts or concrete objects of everyday life. For example, Albanian çerek in the sense of 'quarter of an hour' (Turkish çeyrek), or the various words for 'pocket' (Turkish ceb): Albanian xhep, Bulgarian džob and džeb, Greek τσέπη, Macedonian džeb, Serbocroatian džep.
But we cannot assess the importance, vitality, and durability of Turkish elements by taking into account only the overt ones, that is the loanwords, suffixes, and names. Even if we were to make complete counts of all
Turkish lexical elements in all the Balkan languages, we still would not get but a very incomplete picture — cf. Schroeder 1965. For almost as important and certainly as likely to survive for a long time are the covert Turkisms, that is the very few grammatical ones, as well as the very many lexical and semantic ones.
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
Actes = Actes du Premier Congrès International des Études Balkaniques et Sud-Es Européennes, vol. VI, Linguistique (Sofia: Académie Bulgare des Sciences, 1968).
Andrejčin, L„ N. Rostov, and E. Nikolov, Bəlgarski ezik (Sofia: Narodna Prosveta, 1964).
Andriôtēs, N. P., Etumologiko lexiko tēs koinēs neoellēnikēs, 2nd éd. (Salonika: Aristoteleion Panepistēmion Thessalonikēs, Institouton Neoellēnikōn Spoudōn, 1967).
Baeva, S., "Petko Slavejkov — traducteur et auteur de poèmes turcs", Études Balkaniques 4 (Académie Bulgare des Sciences, 1966), pp. 163-174.
Bahner, Werner, "Zur Funktion des Suffixes -giu im Rumänischen", Cercetări de lingvistică III, supplement, Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Emil Petrovici par ses amis étrangers à l'occasion de son soixantième anniversaire, (1958) pp. 59-63.
Bernstein, S. B., "Les langues turkes de la Péninsule des Balkans et 'l'union des langues balkaniques'", Actes, (1968) pp. 73-79.
Bidwell, Charles E., Review of Thomas F. Magner, A Zagreb Kajkavian Dialect (University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1966); in Language 44.2 (Part 1), 1968, pp. 398-403.
Boissin, Henri, "Sprovë e përkohëshme për një klasifikim të emrave të përveçëm ne shqipe", Konferenca, (1965) pp. 176-182.
Bronsert, Siegfried, "Zu einigen Eigenheiten der Balkanturzismen im Rumänischen", Beiträge zur rumänischen Philologie, edited by Werner Bahner (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, (1968)), pp. 93-113.
Bulka, Nonda, "Frazeologjia shqipe (lokucionet) ne veprën e Nairn Frashërit 'Histori e Skënderbeut'", Buletin i Universitetit Shtetëror të Tiranës, Séria Shkencat Shoqërore, X, 1, (1957), pp. 206-224.
Čakalov, G., II. Ljakov, and Zdr. Stankov, Bəlgarsko-anglijski rečnik (Sofia: Nauka I Izkustvo, 1961).
Dagkitsēs, K., Galloellēniko lexiko tēs laikēs (argot) (Athens: I. G. Basileiou, 1967a).
____, Lexiko tes laikës (Athens: I. G. Basileiou, 1967b).
Deroy, Louis, L'emprunt linguistique (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1956).
Dimitrescu, Florica, Locuţiunile verbale in limba romînă (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne, 1958).
DLRM = Dicţionarul limbii romîne moderne, (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne, 1958).
Ferguson, Charles A., "Diglossia", Word 15, 1959, pp. 325-340.
Fjalor anglisht-shqip, (Tirana: Ministria e Arësimit dhe e Kulturës, Drejtoria e Studimeve dhe Botimeve Shkollore, 1966).
Folklor shqiptar, I. Proza popullore, vol. 1, (Tirana: Instituti i Folklorit, 1963).
Georgacas, Demetrius J., and William A. McDonald, Place Names of Southwest Peloponnesus, Register and Indexes (Athens, 1967).
Gołąb, Zbigniew, "The Influence of Turkish upon the Macedonian Slavonic Dialects", Folia Orientalia (Cracow, 1959) I, pp. 26-45.
Graur, Alexandru, The Romance Character of Romanian, (Bucharest: Publishing House of the Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania, 1967).
Hämeen-Anttila, V. E., "Les emprunts turcs dans les langues slaves du sud", Scando-Slavica IX, 1963, pp. 227-233.
Haugen, Einar, "The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing", Language 26, 1950, pp. 210-231.
____, Language Conflict and Language Planning: The Case of Modern Norwegian (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966).
Hazai, G., "Remarques sur les rapports des langues slaves des Balkans avec le turc-osmanli", Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae VII, 1961, pp. 97-138.
Hodge, Carleton T., and associates, Bulgarian Basic Course, vol. 1, Units 1-15 (Washington: Department of State, Foreign Service Institute, 1961).
Hony, H. C., A Turkish-English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957).
Hristea, Th., "Elemente regionale în limba operei lui I. L. Caragiale", Contribuţii la istoria limbii romîne literare in secolul al XIX-lea, vol. 2 (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne, 1958), pp. 191-229.
IIBE = Izvestija na Instituta za Bəlgarski Ezik, book II, (Sofia, 1952).
Ilkov, K., D. K. Maricas, Ap. Mixajlov, and D. I. Petkidis, Bəlgarsko-gracki rečnik (Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Bəlgarskata Akademija na Naukite, 1960).
İnalcik, H., "L'empire ottoman", Les peuples de l'Europe du sud-est et leur rôle dans l'histoire (XVe-XXe ss.), Rapport pour la séance plénière, 1er Congrès International des Études Balkaniques et Sud-Est Européennes (Sofia, 1966), pp. 7-48.
Ioannidis, A.A., Novogrečesko-russkij slovar', (Moscow : Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel'stvo Inostrannyx i Nacional'nyx Slovarej, 1961).
Ivić, Pavle, Die serbokroatischen Dialekte (The Hague: Mouton, 1958).
Jašar-Nasteva, Olivera, "Makedonskite kalki od turskiot jazik", Makedonski Jazik, years XIII-XIV, fasc. 1-2, (1962-1963), pp. 109-172.
Jonke, Ljudevit, Kniževni jezik u teorii i praksi, 2nd ed. (Zagreb: Znanje, 1965).
Kapetanakēs, Brasidas, To lexiko tēs piatsas, 2nd ed. (Athens: E. Nomikos, 1962).
Karadžić, Vuk St., Srpske narodne pripovetke, 4th state ed. (Belgrade: Državna Štamparija. Kraljevine Jugoslavije, 1937).
Kissling, Hans-Joachim, "Die türkische geographische Nomenklatur auf dem Balkan als Erkenntnismittel für die Südosteuropaforschung", Zeitschrift für Balkanologie III, 1965, pp. 126-142.
Knežević, Anton, Die Turzismen in der Sprache der Kroaten und Serben, (Meisenheim am Glan: Verlag Anton Hain, 1962).
Koneski, Blaze, Istorija na makedonskiot jazik (Skopje: Kočo Racin, 1965).
____, Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen jazik (Skopje: Prosvetno Delo, 1966).
Konferenca = Konferenca e Parë e Studimeve Albanologjike, (Tirana: Universiteti Shtetëror i Tiranès, Instituti i Historisë dhe i Gjuhësisë, 1965).
Krajni, Anton, "Hymja e turquzmave në shqipen dhe përpjekjet për zevendësimin e tyne", Studime Filologjike XIX (II), I, 1965, pp., 143-151.
____, "Bref aperçu des emprunts turcs à l'albanais", Actes, 1968, pp. 873-885.
Lunt, Horace G., A Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language (Skopje, 1952).
Magner, Thomas F., "Language and Nationalism in Yugoslavia", Canadian Slavic Studies 1:3, 1967, pp. 333-347.
____, "Macedonia: Balkan Storm Center", in Jan S. Prybyla, ed., Communism and Nationalism (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University, 1969).
Makedonska, Cvetana, "Otnošenieto na Petko Slavejkov kəm turcizmite v bəlgarskija knižoven ezik", IIBE, 1952, pp. 223-225.
Markov, B., "Nekoi xibridni tvorbi vo makedonskiot jazik", Makedonski Jazik VI :2, 1955, pp. 152-164.
Mirčev, K., "Za sadbata na turcizmite v bəlgarski ezik", 1IBE, 1952, pp. 117-127.
____, Istoričeska gramatika na bəlgarskija ezik (Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1963).
Papahagi, Pe., Parallele Ausdrücke und Redensarten im Rumänischen, Albanesischen, Neugriechischen und Bulgarischen", Jahresbericht des Instituts für rumänische Sprache zu Leipzig 14, 1908, pp. 113-170.
RBE = Rečnik na savremennija bəlgarski knižoven ezik, Vol. I, 1955; vol. II, 1957; vol. III, 1959 (Sofia: Bəlgarska Akademija na Naukite).
RIEB = Revue Internationale des Études Balkaniques.
Riza, Selman, Fillimet e gjuhësisë shqiptare (Prishtina: Mustafa Bakija, 1952).
RMJ = Rečnik na makedonskiot jazik, Vol. I, 1961; vol. II, 1965; vol. III, 1966 (Skopje: Institut za Makedonski Jazik "Krste Misirkov").
Robins, R. H., General Linguistics (London: Longmans, 1964).
Rosetti, AI., and B. Cazacu, Istoria limbii romine literare, I. De la origini pînă la începutul secolului al XlX-lea (Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică, 1961).
Şăineanu, Lazăr, Influenţa orientală asupra limbei şi culturei române, vol. I (Bucharest: Editura Libräriei Socecü & Comp, 1900).
Sandfeld, Kristian, Linguistique balkanique (Paris: Champion, 1930).
____, "Langues balkaniques, I", RIEB, 2ème année, tome II (4), 1936, pp. 465-473.
Schroeder, Klaus-Henning, "Probleme der Wortzählung im Rumänischen", Zeitschrift für Balkanologie III, 1965, pp. 169-179.
Škaljić, Abdulah, Turcizmi u srpskohrvatskom jeziku, (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1966).
Skendi, Stavro, The Albanian National Awakening, 1878-1912 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967).
Skok, Petar, "Restes de la langue turque dans les Balkans", RIEB, 1ère année, tome II, 1935, pp. 247-260.
____, "Langues balkaniques, II", RIEB, 2ème année, tome II (4), 1936, pp. 473-481.
____, "Prilozi proucavanju turcizama u srp.-hrv. jeziku", Slavia XV, 1937-1938, pp. 166-190, 336-366, 481-505.
Spitzer, Leo, "Ein Fall von Sprachmischung", RIEB, 2eme annee, tome I (3), 1936, pp. 123-129.
Stachowski, Stanisław, Przyrostki obcego pochodzenia w języku serbochorwackim
(Cracow: Sumptibus Universalis Iagellonicae, 1961).
Stavrianos, L. S., The Balkans since 1453 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958).
Stojanov, Ljudmil, "Za turcizmite i dialektizmite v bəlgarskija literaturen ezik", IIBE, 1952, pp. 218-219.
Stojkov, Stojko, "Literaturen ezik i dialekti", IIBE, 1952, pp. 129-171.
Swift, Lloyd B., and Selman Agrali, Turkish Basic Course, Units 1-30 (Washington: Department of State, Foreign Service Institute, 1966).
Thomaj, Jani, "Vëzhgime mbi frazeologjizmat e gjuhës shqipe", Konferenca, 1965, pp. 168-175.
Triantaphyllidēs, Manolēs, Neoellēnikē grammatikē, vol. I: Historiké eisagōgē (Athens: Dēmētrakos, 1938).
____, "Xenēlasia ē isoteleia?", Hapanta, vol. I (Salonika: Aristoteleion Panepistēmion Thessalonikēs, Institouton Neoellēnikōn Spoudōn, 1963a), pp. 7-297.
____, "Neugriechische Familiennamen", ibid., 1963b, vol. 2, pp. 263-268.
____, "L'etat present de la question linguistique en Grece", ibid., 1963c, vol. 5, pp. 483-490.
Vendryes, J., Le langage (Paris: La Renaissance du Livre, 1921).
Vranska, Cvetana, "Turskite naimenovanija na otvleceni ponjatija v ezika na bəlgarskija folklor", IIBE, 1952, pp. 220-222.
Xhuvani, Aleksandër, Studime Gjuhësore (Tirana: Instituti i Shkencavet, Instituti i Historisë e i Gjuhësisë, 1956).
[Back to Index]