# Bałkańska liga językowa



## mietagosia

W artykule na Wikipedii dotyczacym balkanskiej ligi jezykowej znalazlam wyrazenia gramatyczne, ktore nie bardzo rozumiem. Co oznaczaja terminy "analityczna deklinacja" oraz "rodzajnik postpozycyjny" (te dwie cechy sa rzekomo charakterystyczne dla wszystkich jezykow balkanskich). Czy ktos wie moze?

Dziekuje z gory za pomoc,
MietaGosia


----------



## kropla

Analityczna deklinacja oznacza deklinacje nie za pomoca kategorii przypadka (czyli taka syntetyczna jak np. w jezyku polskim), a za pomoca przyimkow.

For those who do not speak Polish - previous post was about notions of analytic declination and postpositive articles in Balkan languages.

Analytic declination means declination with prepositions, not using traditional grammatical cases like in Polish or Russian.


----------



## Oletta

mietagosia said:


> oraz "rodzajnik postpozycyjny" (te dwie cechy sa rzekomo charakterystyczne dla wszystkich jezykow balkanskich). Czy ktos wie moze?


Znajomy student filologii chorwackiej, podał mi przykład rodzajnika postpozycyjnego w języku macedońskim: "tvoja*ta* majka", gdzie "ta" jest właśnie takim rodzajnikiem, analogicznie w "makedonski*ot* jazik".


----------



## Thomas1

mietagosia said:


> W artykule na Wikipedii dotyczacym balkanskiej ligi jezykowej znalazlam wyrazenia gramatyczne, ktore nie bardzo rozumiem. Co oznaczaja terminy "analityczna deklinacja" oraz "rodzajnik postpozycyjny" (te dwie cechy sa rzekomo charakterystyczne dla wszystkich jezykow balkanskich). Czy ktos wie moze?
> 
> Dziekuje z gory za pomoc,
> MietaGosia


Z ciekawości, na pewno deklinacja analityczna jest cechą charakterystyczną wszystkich języków z ligi bałkańskiej? Mam tu na myśli serbski.

Tom


----------



## mietagosia

Dziekuje za wszystkie odpowiedzi - okazaly sie bardzo pomocne! Spytalam kolezanke Chorwatke, ktorej znana jest zarowno gramatyka serbska jak i chorwacka, i powiedziala mi, ze w jezyku serbo-chorwackim nie wystepuje ani deklinacja analityczna ani rodzajnik postpozycyjny. Terminy te odnosza sie glownie do jezykow: bulgarskiego i macedonskiego. Byc moze maja tez cos wspolnego z wspolczesna greka oraz jezykiem tureckim - nie jestem jednak pewna, poniewaz nie zaglebialam sie nigdy w gramatyke tych jezykow. 

Jeszcze raz dziekuje wszystkim za pomoc!
MietaGosia


----------



## Oletta

Thomas1 said:


> Z ciekawości, na pewno deklinacja analityczna jest cechą charakterystyczną wszystkich języków z ligi bałkańskiej? Mam tu na myśli serbski.
> 
> Tom


Zobacz na to forum: http://forum.jzn.pl/viewtopic.php?p=1078

Z tego, co mi wiadomo, to literacki serbski do ligii nie należy, jedynie jego dialekty cechują się rodzajnikiem postpozycyjnym.


----------



## Piotr_WRF

Chciałbym jedynie dodać, że także język rumuński stosuje rodzajniki postpozycyjne.

N.p. słowo _człowiek_ bez rodzajnika:
po francusku _homme_, po rumuńsku _om_.

Z rodzajnikiem określonym:
po francusku _*l'*homme_, po rumuńsku _om*ul*_.


----------



## jazyk

> Byc moze maja tez cos wspolnego z wspolczesna greka oraz jezykiem tureckim - nie jestem jednak pewna, poniewaz nie zaglebialam sie nigdy w gramatyke tych jezykow.


Zarówno język rumuński, jak i makedonski mają rodzajniki postpozycyjne: rumuński lupul i makedonski волкот (po polsku wilk). Części, które podkreśliłem, odpowiadają przedimkom w tych językach.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

mietagosia said:


> W artykule na Wikipedii dotyczacym balkanskiej ligi jezykowej znalazlam wyrazenia gramatyczne, ktore nie bardzo rozumiem. Co oznaczaja terminy "analityczna deklinacja" oraz "rodzajnik postpozycyjny" (te dwie cechy sa rzekomo charakterystyczne dla wszystkich jezykow balkanskich). Czy ktos wie moze?
> 
> Dziekuje z gory za pomoc,
> MietaGosia


 
*forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=4951947&postcount=16*

At the above link, if you copy&paste it, you can see the brief history of the Balkan sprachbund (Bałkańskiej ligi językowej) and which languages belong to it.

The analytic declension and postpositioned definite articles are rather superficial characteristics of the languages of the Balkan sprachbund. 




These are *the basic characteristics of the Balkan sprachbund* (listed in decreasing importance for the definition of the sprachbund):

{*Balkan-1*} Not distinguishing Genitive and Dative.
{*Balkan-2*} Verbs have no infinitive form.
{*Balkan-3*} Category of definite nouns.
{*Balkan-4*} Duplucation (cross-reference) of the objects.
{*Balkan-5*} Generic future tense, not inherited.
The following languages have all the characteristics listed above thus acquiring membership in the Balkan sprachbund:

*Albanian*
Romano-balkanic (*Romanian*/Valachian/Moldovan/Arumunian)
Slavo-balkanic (*Bulgarian*/Macedonian/Torlak)
*Greek*
Thus, according to the definition, Serbian and Turkish are not sprachbund members. Serbian shares {*Balkan-5*} only. Turkish does not share any of the {*Balkan-?*} above.




These are some *additional features* shared by some of the languages of the Balkan sprachbund and some other languages in the neighbourhood:

{*Balkan-a1*} Post-positioned definite articles (minus Greek)
{*Balkan-a2*} Only two cases in noun declension (Albanian and Romano-balkanic only)
{*Balkan-a3*} Many words borrowed from Turkish (plus Serbian, Gypsy)
{*Balkan-a4*} Non-witness mood (Slavo-balkanic only, plus Turkish)
{*Balkan-a5*} Noun declension completely lost (Slavo-balkanic only, what about Gypsy?)
Any of the {*Balkan-?*} characteristics is to be considered in more details if someone is interested. *Queries are welcome*.

The Balkan sprachbund originated as an Imperial sprachbund of the Roman Empire (commonly known as Byzantine Empire). When Turkish came to the Balkans, the Balkan sprachbund has been already established completely. Turkish did not acquire membership. Nevertheless, the Balkan sprachbund preserved its position of an imperial sprachbund, this time in the Ottoman empire.




*The 19th century announced the end of the Balkan sprachbund*: it is in the past now. If, for instance, we consider the *Slavo-balkanic, its history* may be divided into the following *periods*:

{*PH*} pre-historical period (shared with most languages)
{*IE*} indo-european period (shared with indo-european languages)
{*SL*} slavic period (shared with slavic languages)
{*BK*}* balkanic period* (since 10th until 19th century, AD)
{*RS*} rossophilo-serbomanian period (now approaching its end; the rossophilia infected Bulgarian, the serbomania infected Macedonian)
*G-*period (in the near future, probably shared with most languages again; *G *stands *either* for globalization thus reflecting the influance of English *or* for Gypsy thus reflecting the fact that most of people speaking Slavo-balkanic and Romano-balkanic will be probably Gypsy)


----------



## Cepkah

Christo Tamarin said:


> *forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=4951947&postcount=16*
> 
> At the above link, if you copy&paste it, you can see the brief history of the Balkan sprachbund (Bałkańskiej ligi językowej) and which languages belong to it.
> 
> The analytic declension and postpositioned definite articles are rather superficial characteristics of the languages of the Balkan sprachbund.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are *the basic characteristics of the Balkan sprachbund* (listed in decreasing importance for the definition of the sprachbund):
> 
> {*Balkan-1*} Not distinguishing Genitive and Dative.
> {*Balkan-2*} Verbs have no infinitive form.
> {*Balkan-3*} Category of definite nouns.
> {*Balkan-4*} Duplucation (cross-reference) of the objects.
> {*Balkan-5*} Generic future tense, not inherited.
> The following languages have all the characteristics listed above thus acquiring membership in the Balkan sprachbund:
> 
> *Albanian*
> Romano-balkanic (*Romanian*/Valachian/Moldovan/Arumunian)
> Slavo-balkanic (*Bulgarian*/Macedonian/Torlak)
> *Greek*
> Thus, according to the definition, Serbian and Turkish are not sprachbund members. Serbian shares {*Balkan-5*} only. Turkish does not share any of the {*Balkan-?*} above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are some *additional features* shared by some of the languages of the Balkan sprachbund and some other languages in the neighbourhood:
> 
> {*Balkan-a1*} Post-positioned definite articles (minus Greek)
> {*Balkan-a2*} Only two cases in noun declension (Albanian and Romano-balkanic only)
> {*Balkan-a3*} Many words borrowed from Turkish (plus Serbian, Gypsy)
> {*Balkan-a4*} Non-witness mood (Slavo-balkanic only, plus Turkish)
> {*Balkan-a5*} Noun declension completely lost (Slavo-balkanic only, what about Gypsy?)
> Any of the {*Balkan-?*} characteristics is to be considered in more details if someone is interested. *Queries are welcome*.
> 
> The Balkan sprachbund originated as an Imperial sprachbund of the Roman Empire (commonly known as Byzantine Empire). When Turkish came to the Balkans, the Balkan sprachbund has been already established completely. Turkish did not acquire membership. Nevertheless, the Balkan sprachbund preserved its position of an imperial sprachbund, this time in the Ottoman empire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The 19th century announced the end of the Balkan sprachbund*: it is in the past now. If, for instance, we consider the *Slavo-balkanic, its history* may be divided into the following *periods*:
> 
> {*PH*} pre-historical period (shared with most languages)
> {*IE*} indo-european period (shared with indo-european languages)
> {*SL*} slavic period (shared with slavic languages)
> {*BK*}* balkanic period* (since 10th until 19th century, AD)
> {*RS*} rossophilo-serbomanian period (now approaching its end; the rossophilia infected Bulgarian, the serbomania infected Macedonian)
> *G-*period (in the near future, probably shared with most languages again; *G *stands *either* for globalization thus reflecting the influance of English *or* for Gypsy thus reflecting the fact that most of people speaking Slavo-balkanic and Romano-balkanic will be probably Gypsy)




Balkan Turkish is rather a part of Balkansprachbund. Especially among the Turks who live in Northeastern Bulgaria(лудогорски турци) [Balkan-2] is totally in use and the noun declension is partially lost or deformed. Analytic perfect tense is also used in modern Turkish as it's used in Turkish in Bulgaria but for the official Turkish, it is less common. However I hear the same semantic usage -as it is in Bulgarian- in turkish dialects which are spoken in the Anatolia and in the Balkans. As far as I know the analytic perfect tense is seen in Bulgarian (Macedonian) under the influence of Turkish but today this tense is not ironically very common in Turkish as much as in Bulgarian. Additionally Balkan languages(Balkan Turkish included) have common idiomatic expressions. Finally I didn't mention even the phonetic similarities...


----------



## Christo Tamarin

Cepkah said:


> Balkan Turkish is rather a part of Balkansprachbund. Especially among the Turks who live in Northeastern Bulgaria(лудогорски турци) [Balkan-2] is totally in use and the noun declension is partially lost or deformed. Analytic perfect tense is also used in modern Turkish as it's used in Turkish in Bulgaria but for the official Turkish, it is less common. However I hear the same semantic usage -as it is in Bulgarian- in turkish dialects which are spoken in the Anatolia and in the Balkans. As far as I know the analytic perfect tense is seen in Bulgarian (Macedonian) under the influence of Turkish but today this tense is not ironically very common in Turkish as much as in Bulgarian. Additionally Balkan languages(Balkan Turkish included) have common idiomatic expressions. Finally I didn't mention even the phonetic similarities...


Здрасти, Cepkah, merhaba!

In my post, I have listed {*Balkan-a4*} Non-witness mood (Slavo-balkanic only, plus Turkish). You call that feature "analytic perfect tense", don't you? 

In my post, I actually gave a definition: In order to acquire membership of the Balkansprachbund, a language has to meet all requrements {*Balkan-1*}, {*Balkan-2*}, {*Balkan-3*}, {*Balkan-4*}, {*Balkan-5*}. Those features lie deep in the language and back in the history. {*Balkan-1*} is the most specific feature, then comes {*Balkan-4*}, then {*Balkan-2*}, then {*Balkan-5*}, and finally {*Balkan-3*} is the least specific feature, shared by all the Romance and Germanic languages.

As far as I know, Turkish do not meet any of those requrements. You claim that {*Balkan-2*} is met in the Deliormanlı dialect. Would you provide some examples? By the way, {*Balkan-2*} is met in some Serbian dialects as well. Anyway, meeting {*Balkan-2*} only is not enough for the membership, according to my definition. 

As far as I know, Turkish implements also {*Balkan-3*} but partially only.

Please provide also some examples of Turkish having lost noun declension. By the way, French meets {*Balkan-a5*} Noun declension completely lost", but he did not apply for membership in the Balkansprachbund.

Anyway, Turkish has influenced all the Balkanic languages. I meant that in {*Balkan-a3*} "Many words borrowed from Turkish". You are right, not only words are to be considered here but entire expressions only.

Turkish has influenced Slavo-Balkanic more than the other Balkanic languages. E.g. the {*Balkan-a4*} "Non-witness mood" feature is shared by Slavo-balkanic and Turkish. (You call that "analytic perfect tense", don't you?) Actually, I do not know which language first adopted that feature: Slavo-balkanic or Turkish. I do not know if some other language in Anatolia (Armenian, Kurdish) also have that feature.

According to my definition, the membership in the Indo-European family is not a prerequisite for the membership in the Balkansprachbund but is a plus, anyway. Perhaps this is the explanation why Turkish did not acquire Balkansprachbund membership.


----------



## Cepkah

Здрасти, Selâm

Well, I'm not a linguist, I had just some lectures about linguistics at university. What I know is what I read in academic articles. So if I have some mistakes forgive me.

Non-witness mood is absolutely analytic perfect tense. That's not only me who calls it in this way
Balkan Sprachbund is not a language family or a brach of it but it's just a linguistic area which is formed in consequence of living together in geostrategic and historic conditions.

For the feature {Balkan-a3}, Turkish language has also been influenced by the Balkan languages especially Greek and partially others. There are a considerable number of greek words and expressions in Turkish. 

E.g.  
Açelya Azalea, 
 Anemon Anemonis, 
 Bamya Bamia, 
 Barbunya Barbunia, 
 Biber Piperi, 
 Bulgur Bligouri, 
 Fasulye Fasoulia, 
 Fulya Fulia, 
 Ispanak Spanaki, 
 Karanfil Karafilli, 
 Kayısı Kaisi, 
 Kestane Kastano, 
 Kiraz Kerasi, 
 Krizantem Krisantemi, 
 Köknar Kukunari, 
 Lahana Lahano, 
 Mandalina Mandarini, 
 Manolya Manolia, 
 Mantar Manitari, 
 Marul Maruli, 
 Maydanoz Maidanos, 
 Muşmula Mousmoula, 
 Ökaliptus Ev-Kalips, 
 Papatya Papadia, 
 Patates Patates, 
 Pırasa Praso,
 Portakal Portokali, 
 Yasemin Yasemi,

 Açelya Azalea, 
 Akasya (Yeniden doğuş), 
 Ata-Athan (Ölümsüz), 
 Bora Bora, 
 Defne (Bir ağaç), 
 Delfin (Yunus balığı), 
 Demet Demati, 
 Dilara Diara 
 Eda (Jenerasyon), 
 Eflatun (Açık mor), 
 Esmerelda (Zümrüt), 
 Elmas (Kıymetli taş), 
 Fidan (Yeni yetişen körpe ağaç), 
 Fide: (sebze veya körpe çiçek), 
 Filiz Filizi, 
 Fulya (Bir çiçek), 
 Funda Funda, 
 İdil (Kır hayatını konu edinen yazı veya şiir), 
 İlay-İlke (Işık), 
 Kiraz (*Meyve* ismi), 
 Manolya Manolia, 
 Melinda (Nazik), 
 Melisa (Bal arısı), 
 Menderes (Akarsu yataklarının dolanbaçlı kısmı), 
 Merve-Merme (Parlayan), 
 Methe (Nazik-İnci), 
 Papatya Papadia, 
 Pelin Pelini, 
 Poyraz (Kuzeydoğudan esen soğuk rüzgar), 
 Saba (Sebalı), 
 Selen-Selin (Ay), 
 Sibel (Kahin-Nasihatcı), 
 Talya (Neşeli), 
 Temel (Yapıt için açılan çukur, Dayanak), 
 Yasemin Yasemi.

Analytic Perfect Tense: Well, I don't know if Turkish has borrowed it from Armenian or Kurdish. But I've asked my armeniaen friend and she said that there is a such tense which is used in standard Armenian and I also know that this tense is used in collaquial Kurdish. But Turkic languages have this tense may be it's a feature of even altaic languages. I don't know.

For the situation {Balkan-2}, e.g. in Deliorman Turkish even in some regions of Rhodopean Turkish(where I come from) it's said " İsteerim geleerim however in standard Turkish it's "Gelmek istiyorum" The second verb must be in form of infinitive grammatically but in this case it's conjugated as in Bulgarian. If you pay attention in Deliorman Turkish twor verbs are moving as in Bulgarian.

Bulgarian: Искам да дойда
Deliorman Turkish: İsteerim (de)* geleerim
Standar Turkish: Gelmek istiyorum.

* It's also used but it changes the meaning a little bit.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

Здрасти. Selâm.



Cepkah said:


> Balkan Sprachbund is not a language family or a brach of it but it's just a linguistic area which is formed in consequence of living together in geostrategic and historic conditions.


 
In the sense of geography, Turkish is a Balkanic language.

In the sense of history, Turkish is a Balkanic language as well.

So, there may be mutual influences between languages living in neighbourhood during a long time in the history. The linguistic term "Sprachbund" has more assumptions, however. Otherwise, one might speak about a Sprachbund for every geographical area. The Balkansprachbund is unique, in some sense.

The Balkansprachbund has a lingustic background. It goes deeper than mutual influences. In my post, I actually gave a definition: In order to acquire membership of the Balkansprachbund, a language has to meet all requrements {*Balkan-1*}, {*Balkan-2*}, {*Balkan-3*}, {*Balkan-4*}, {*Balkan-5*}. That definition does not mention geography or history. According to that definition, neither Turkish nor Serbian is a member of the Balkansprachbund. Normal mutual influences do exist, but the special requirements are not met.

The Balkansprachbund is perhaps unique with the fact that such deep features as {*Balkan-1*}.. {*Balkan-5*} were introduced in parallel into languages which are not so close related. If, for instance, we considered the collection of all the Slavic languages, we could also see many and many common deep features, but they can be easily explained: modern languages inherited those features (or at least the corresponding tendences) from the common ancestor language. Also, if we considered the collection of all the Romance languages, we could also see many and many common deep features, but they can be easily explained: modern languages inherited those features (or at least the corresponding tendences) from the common ancestor language. On the contrary, the features {*Balkan-1*}.. {*Balkan-5*} were not inherited, they were developed in parallel, rather.



Cepkah said:


> For the situation {Balkan-2}, e.g. in Deliorman Turkish even in some regions of Rhodopean Turkish(where I come from) it's said " İsteerim geleerim however in standard Turkish it's "Gelmek istiyorum" The second verb must be in form of infinitive grammatically but in this case it's conjugated as in Bulgarian. If you pay attention in Deliorman Turkish twor verbs are moving as in Bulgarian.
> 
> Bulgarian: Искам да дойда
> Deliorman Turkish: İsteerim (de)* geleerim
> Standar Turkish: Gelmek istiyorum.
> 
> * It's also used but it changes the meaning a little bit.


Some eastern dialects of Serbian also have {Balkan-2}, perhaps. However, {Balkan-2} means that there is no such form as *gelmek* at all. What about Deliorman Turkish? Is the older version "Gelmek isterim" also possible along with the new version "İsteerim (de)* geleerim"? If not possible, then Deliorman Turkish would really meet {Balkan-2}. But Turkish would not, anyway.



Cepkah said:


> Non-witness mood is absolutely analytic perfect tense. That's not only me who calls it in this way.
> ..
> Analytic Perfect Tense: Well, I don't know if Turkish has borrowed it from Armenian or Kurdish. But I've asked my armeniaen friend and she said that there is a such tense which is used in standard Armenian and I also know that this tense is used in collaquial Kurdish. But Turkic languages have this tense may be it's a feature of even altaic languages. I don't know.


Modern languages as English, Spanish, French, etc have analytic perfect tense. This means that an auxiliary verb is actually conjugated while the main verb stays in some common form:

English: I *have* seen, you *have* seen, he *has* seen, ..
French: J'*ai* vu, tu *as* vu, il *a* vu, ..

The term "analytic perfect tense" is in opposition to the term "synthetic perfect tense" as in Latin:
(ego) *vidi*, (tu) *vidisti*, (Ceasar) *vidit*, ..

All Romance languages, incl. Romano-balkanic, have analitic perfect tense (see French examples above).

Slavic languages, incl. Bulgarian, inherited analitic perfect tense from Old Slavic:
видѣлъ *есмь*, видѣлъ *еси*, видѣлъ *есть*, ..

Modern Greek did not preserve the synthetic perfect tense from ancient Greek. Modern Greek developed its analitic perfect tense in parallel with all Romance languages, most probably, when living in the Roman empire.

Thus, "analitic perfect tense" is not a special balkanic feature since it is shared by all the Slavic, Romance and Germanic languages.

The special balkanic feature, {*Balkan-a4*} "non-witness mood", can be found in Slavo-balkanic and Turkish, as far as I know. It was mentioned because it is very specific. It is not listed among the requirements for the membership in the Balkansprachbund, however. I am about to describe {*Balkan-a4*} "non-witness mood" in a separate thread as it is implemented in Bulgarian. Then, please add some description for Turkish and ask your Armenian friend again.


----------



## sokol

We already have established in another thread in Etymology-and-History forum that Turkish definitely is not part of the Balkansprachbund:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=836625&highlight=sprachbund
(It was me who tried to point out over there that Turkish is part of the sprachbund, but I have come to the conclusion that I was definitely wrong: Turkish is no sprachbund language.)

Modern Turkish dialects spoken in Bulgaria however might - I have no knowledge of them and it is completely possible that they've now adopted a 'Bulgarian' style, at least to a degree.

Gypsy languages, by the way, typically are not Balkansprachbund members; however here too it is possible that some of the dialects with heavy exposure to a sprachbund language (like Kalderash for example) might show sprachbund features.


----------



## Cepkah

Christo Tamarin said:


> Здрасти. Selâm.
> 
> Some eastern dialects of Serbian also have {Balkan-2}, perhaps. However, {Balkan-2} means that there is no such form as *gelmek* at all. What about Deliorman Turkish? Is the older version "Gelmek isterim" also possible along with the new version "İsteerim (de)* geleerim"? If not possible, then Deliorman Turkish would really meet {Balkan-2}. But Turkish would not, anyway.
> 
> The special balkanic feature, {*Balkan-a4*} "non-witness mood", can be found in Slavo-balkanic and Turkish, as far as I know. It was mentioned because it is very specific. It is not listed among the requirements for the membership in the Balkansprachbund, however. I am about to describe {*Balkan-a4*} "non-witness mood" in a separate thread as it is implemented in Bulgarian. Then, please add some description for Turkish and ask your Armenian friend again.




Deliorman Turkish is considered as a dialect of Turkish so there is no standard Deliorman Turkish, Rhodopean Turkish etc. But as far as I know, it is never used the infinitive forms of verbs. 

I've asked my armenian friend if they have this tense in the same meaning (non-witness mood). Arevm'tahayeren (western armenian language) which is spoken by Armenian Diaspora.

So this topic is very complicated and interesting however my final exams are forthcoming I won't be able to write about it soon


----------



## Christo Tamarin

The discussion about {*Balkan-a4*} "non-witness mood" continues in this thread.


----------



## OldAvatar

Christo Tamarin said:


> {*Balkan-2*} Verbs have no infinitive form.
> Romano-balkanic (*Romanian*/Valachian/Moldovan/Arumunian)


1. Romanian still has the infinitive form.
Example: _
Doresc *a specifica*_. = I'd like to specify.
It's true, the conjunctive form is often used (_Doresc *să specific*_) but the infinitive form is still there.
2. Aromanian and Romanian are considered different languages by many linguists, indeed. However, Aromanian is still intelligible for a Romanian speaker.
Valachian and Moldovan languages are basically the same thing. Those are both standardized Romanian, there are no variations.

Best regards,
Do vizhdane
OA


----------



## Christo Tamarin

OldAvatar said:


> Christo Tamarin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {*Balkan-2*} Verbs have no infinitive form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Romanian still has the infinitive form.
> Example:
> _Doresc *a specifica*_. = I'd like to specify.
> It's true, the conjunctive form is often used (_Doresc *să specific*_) but the infinitive form is still there.
Click to expand...

 
You are right. I have to change it: 





Christo Tamarin said:


> {*Balkan-2*} *Verbs Avoid Infinitive forms*.


 
In Eastern Bulgarian, there are also relicts from infinitive. Examples:

{English}{*EasternBulgarianUsingRelictInfinitive*}{StandardBulgarianFullyBalkanized}
Can you understand it? *Можеш ли го разбра?  *Можеш ли да го разбереш? 
You cannot understand it. *Не можеш го разбра.  *Не можеш да го разбереш. 
You can understand it. *Можеш го разбра. * Можеш да го разбереш. 

Note that the relict infinitive in the third line is not possible. So, the relict infinitive forms are used in some limited expressions only. 

The usage of the relict infinitive in the standard language is not encouraged because of the many mistakes made even by native speakers of Bulgarian. Young people cannot use them, actually.


----------



## albaiulia

Thomas1 said:


> Z ciekawości, na pewno deklinacja analityczna jest cechą charakterystyczną wszystkich języków z ligi bałkańskiej? Mam tu na myśli serbski.
> 
> Tom



czesc,
tez sie nie do konca zgodze z tym, ze wszystkie jezyki balkanskiej ligii jezykowej deklinuja sie analitycznie. rumunski i albanski deklinuja sie przez koncowki, tj. jezyk polski.


----------

