Unstressed a > |, ė .

Modern Northern Rumanian | and Albanian ė are very similar, although not perfectly identical. This is verified also by X-ray studies.

The tendency towards the reduction of the distinction of the degree of opening in an unstressed syllable is found in all Romance languages, strongest in Spanish, Portuguese, and southern Italian dialects. Moreover, there are differences between Albanian and Rumanian in the use of this sound. Referring to these circumstances, the theory of an independent development of | in both languages was put forward. There is, however, extensive evidence of close connections between Rumanian and Albanian also in this respect.

In both languages, | developed from (1) unstressed a : Latin familia > N. Rumanian f|meie, femeie, Alb. fėmijė; Lat. camisia > N. Rum. c|maÕ|, Arum. c|meaš|, Alb. kėmishė; Lat. parens, parente(m) > N. Rum. and Arum. p|rinte; Alb. pėrint; etc.; (2) from an a in front of a nasal: Lat. canis > N. Rum. cīne, cīine, Arum. cīne, Alb. qėn, qen; Lat. sanctus > N. Rum. sīnt. sīn, Alb. shėnt, shėn, etc. (From the phonologic viewpoint, ī was in Common Rumanian a variant of | .) (3) In both Albanian and Rumanian, | developed not only from a but also, in certain circumstances, from any other vowel (i, e, o and u ).

In a period corresponding to Common Rumanian, a appeared exclusively in a stressed syllable and | only in an unstressed in both Rumanian and Albanian. In both languages, later development created several exceptions to this rule. Thus, in Northern Rumanian, stressed | appears in the first person plural of the verbs in the first conjugation: lucr|m “we are working“. The plural form of feminine nouns such as cetate, plur. cet|Ūi, with stressed | , developed after the period of Common Rumanian.

It is interesting that the Gheg dialect of Albanian created a series of nasal vowels while Tosc, the southern dialect, Afollowed the same way as Rumanian, creating a stressed vowel ė , similar to Rumanian | .@

AThe phonemization of | occurred in relatively identical circumstances in Rumanian and Albanian.@ Thus, the opposition a : | is found in the category of determination: N. Rum. fat| “girl“, fata “the girl“; Alb. vajzė “girl“, vajza “the girl“. It also appears in gender: Common Rumanian cumnatu “brother-in-law“, cumnat| “sister-in-law“; and in certain grammatical cases: N. Rum. nominative-accusative fat|, genitive-dative (unei) fete, Alb. (njė) vajzė and (e, i, njė) vajze, respectively.

Later development changed the Albanian ė in many cases, while the number of such cases in Rumanian is much less. Thus, regarding this sound, Rumanian is more conservative than Albanian. This is in accord with the idea that Albanian is a continuation of an ancient Balkan language and as such, continues the phonologic system of that language (of which ė was a part). The ancestors of the Rumanians, on the other hand, abandoned this language (adopting Latin), preserving only some elements, among which is the vowel | . In these circumstances, since most of the phonologic elements of Rumanian are of Latin origin, | may be regarded a Aborrowed@ sound in this language.

The preservation of Latin ß

Poghirc (ILR 1969, p. 323) explains the ct > pt change by the substratum: the groups pt, ps were, in the Romance languages in general, as weak as was the group ct: in Late Latin, there are ipse > isse, optimo, scriptum, septembre > otimo, scritum, setembre, while in Rumanian, this group is resistent: Lat. septem > Rum. Õeapte. It appears that the consonant group kt was eliminated from the speech of the ancestors of the Albanians and Rumanians: in the Rumanian words from the substratum, it does never appear, nor is it found among DacoBMoesian words, and Albanian has natė, in contrast to Latin noctem, Lithuanian naktìs. There are also examples of ks > ps among ancient Balkan placenames: Axyrtos B Apsyrtos, Crexi B Krepsa, Kokkyx B Kokkyps.

There is a CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PHONETIC STRUCTURE OF ALBANIAN AND RUMANIAN, especially regarding end-vowels: -e was preserved; a > |, ė; and -u, -o, -i disappeared.

In Latin, n had a strong and a weak form. During the early development of the Romance languages, in several areas, this consonant became de-nasalized, as a consequence of the decrease of pressure of the tongue during its pronunciation. Weak -n- disappeared often, e.g., in Portuguese and in Rumanian dialects. In the southern (Tosc) dialect of Albanian and in Northern Rumanian it changed to -r-. In N. Rum., this can be shown in words as c|runt “grey(ish)“, m|runt “small“, etc. In contrast to this, Arumanian has minut and c|nut. Earlier, much more words in N. Rum. were affected by rhotacism. Thus, at least until the 16th century, Rumanian spoken in Moldavia as well as by the Rumanian inhabitants of adjacent Mįramaros (Rum. MaramureÕ), and those of the region of the MunŪii Apuseni, was rhotacized. In other areas, the weak -n- disappeared. Today rhotacism is only found among speakers of N. Rum. living in the region of the MunŪii Apuseni.

Also Northern Rumanian spoken in the Balkan peninsula has varied and is still varying in this respect. Rhotacism is found in the RudnikBDrinjaca area while it is absent in the valleys of the Timok and the Morava. Also Istro-Rumanian is rhotacized. (Today, the situation once existing can in many cases only be reconstructed on the basis of placenames.) It is interesting that in Albanian, this phenomenon is only found in the southern (Tosc) dialect: zėri, gjuri, Shqiperi, as opposed to Gheg zāni, gjuni, and Shqypni (“the voice“, “the knee“, and “Albania“, respectively).

In classic Latin, the demonstrative pronoun is mostly put before the noun which it determines. In the Late Latin text APeregrinatio Aethereae@, ille is proclitic in 194 cases and enclitic in 80. In Rumanian and in Albanian, as also in Bulgarian, the definite article is enclitic; e.g., N. Rum. cal “horse“, calul “the horse“, fat| “girl“, fata “the girl“.

(a) The article is not used when the noun is reigned by a preposition: N. Rum. au mers la p|dure “they have gone to the forest“, Alb. vate nė pallįt “he has gone to the palace“.

(d) The correspondence of the possessive article in gender and number with the preceding noun (denoting the person or thing possessed): Rum. o fat| a vecinului “a girl of the neighbour“, Alb. kopshti i luleve “the flower-garden“.

(e) The article used with the possessive determiners also appears as the determinative before a genitive: Rum. ai palatului, Alb. tė pallatit “those of the palace, the people from the palace“; Rum. a cui e aceast| cas|? Alb. e kujt ėshtė ajó shtėpi? “whose is this house?“

The differencies are the result of later development. For instance, in Albanian, the determinative is also used before a genitive or a possessive pronoun which follows the suffixed article: Alb. shtėpia e plakut “the house of the old man“, shtėpia e mia “my house, the house of mine“. In modern Northern Rumanian, this is not the case: casa b|trīnului “the house of the old man“, p|māntul grīului “the earth of wheat“, popa s|u “his priest“, etc. In Arumanian, as well as at an earlier stage of Northern Rumanian, however, as shown by old texts, the construction still present in Albanian is the rule: N. Rum. p|mīntul al grīului, popa al s|u, etc. Similarly, while modern N. Rum. has al, a, and lui (with the function of the genitive) and cel, cea (with adjectival function), Albanian has only i, e, but in the earliest N. Rumanian texts, al, a, often appear before adjectives instead of modern cel, cea.

Also adverbs may be formed in the same way in the two languages: Rum. niciodat| “never“, tot aÕa “in the same way“; Alb. asnjėherė “never“, gjithashtu “in the same way“, etc.

The personal pronoun (eu, tu, el, ea, “I, you, he, she“) in the accusative (mine, tine, sine “me, you, him, her“) contains the particle -ne. This has a counterpart in Albanian (-ne) and in Greek (e)mena. There is a perfect parallelism among these three languages as regards the absolute and the conjunct forms.

The feminine forms of the pronoun may be used in a neutre sense in Rumanian: o cunosc means both “I know her“ and “I know that, I know it“; una means “one (feminine)“ and “one thing“, for instance: una e s-o vrei Õi alta s-o faci “it is one thing to want (will) it and another to do it“. Also asta means both “this (feminine)“ and “this one, this thing“. Albanian ajo “she“ and ketó, kejó “this one (feminine)“are used in the same way, e.g., tsh do nga ketó “what do you want for this“.

are in Rumanian formed in a way which is different from that used in the other Romance languages. Arumanian ntīnß,, Northern Rumanian dialectally and in old texts īntānu; modern literary language īntāi “first“, from Vulgar Latin *antaneus (cf. ante “in front of, before“). This is similar to Albanian: parė “first“, from para “in front of, before“.

-a, -ac, -andru, -esc, -eÕte, -eÕ, (-aÕ, oÕ), -|ni, -īrl|, -man, -oane, -(o)ma, -unŪ(|), -(u)Õ(|), -z(|) .

(2) -esc is a very important suffix, which forms adjectives: firesc “natural“, from fire “nature“; b|rb|tesc “masculine“, from b|rbat “man“; romānesc “Rumanian“, etc. The variant of this suffix, -eÕte, forms adverbs: fireÕte “naturally“ romāneÕte “like a Rumanian, after the manner of Rumanians“, etc. In Albanian, the corresponding suffixes are -ish and -isht, e.g.,  obanisht “like a shepherd“.

(3) -eÕ, (-aÕ, oÕ) may originate from the substratum but other etymologies have been proposed, among others, from Hungarian. However, a Hungarian borrowing is not possible in Albanian.

(5) -(u)Õ(|): in Albanian, -sh forms diminutives. This may have been the case once also in Rumanian.

(6) -z|, -Ū|, Alb. -zė, -cė, form diminutives and collective nouns: Rum. coac|z| “black currant; gooseberry“; Alb. kokazė “sweetmeat, from kokė “berry, fruit“.

To strengthen the sense of a noun, “great thing“ may be added: Rum. mare lucru, Alb. pun“e madhe: Rum. am o poft| de Ūig|ri mare lucru “I have a great desire for cigarettes“, Alb. i bėnet njė kal pun“e madhe “a huge horse appeared before him“. Also in Macedonian, “great thing“ may be added with the same effect.

Latin uvula, the diminutive of uva “grape“, is in both Rumanian and Albanian called “little man“: Rum. omuÕor, “little man, dwarf; uvula“, a diminutive of om “man“. Alb. njerith “uvula“, from njeri “man“. This is found also in Bulgarian: m|ńec “little man; uvula“, from m|ń “man“.

Latin *albina “bee hive, bee swarm“, > N. Rum. and Meglenorum. albin|, Arum. algin| “bee“. The shift of sense in Rumanian to “bee“ seems to have been induced by Alb. bletė, which has both the sense of “bee“ and of “beehive“.

Latin habere, Rum. a avea “to have“. The participle of this verb is used in Rumanian to express the notion of “rich, wealthy“: avut. In Albanian, i pįsurė “rich“ is the past participle of the verb “to have“. In early N. Rum. texts, the past participle of a Õti “to know“ was used in the sense of expert, learned, erudit.“ In Arumanian, this is still in use. The same is the case in Albanian: dij “to know“, i diturė “learned, erudite“.

Latin	meaning	Albanian	N. Rum.	meaning in Albanian & Rumanian:
conventus	district court, session, agreement	kuvėndoj “I discuss“	cuvānt	word
cuneus	wedge	kuj	cui	nail
draco	dragon	dreq	drac	devil
falx	sickle, scythe	felqinė	falc|	jaw, cheek
horreo	I fear, I am shocked	urrej	ur|sc	I hate
mergo	I submerge	mėrgonj	merg	I go
palus, padule	marsh	pyll	p|dure	forest
sessum (sedeo, sedere, sessum est)	sit	shesh	Ões	low-land
sella	chair	shalet “saddle“	Õale	loins, small of the back

Remarks: conventus: Latin uerbum became in the Christian terminology the correspondent of

Greek logoV and was replaced by other terms, such as conuentum, fabula, parabola (ILR I, 1965, p. 62).

Latin mergo: the change of meaning is old, as shown by the Latin text: Aimmargebam ... in quartum decimumque annum@ “I was in the 14s“; cf. Daicoviciu, C., Dacoromania V., Cluj, 1927/28, pp. 477B 478; in Dacica, 1969, p. 585.

These are examples of parallel changes of sense of Latin words, not found in the other Romance languages but shared by Rumanian and Albanian. They must be considered in the following contexts: (a) changes of meaning in Vulgar Latin (for example, mergo and veteranus have been also used in the senses which now are the rule in Rumanian and Albanian); (b) of the geographic situation of Balkan Latin, which made a considerable Greek influence possible (e.g., omilew has also in Greek the two senses “meeting“ and “conversation“). (c) In the background of these changes of meaning are also universal, generally human ways of thought and association, the socio-cultural and historical characteristics of the speakers, as well as general psychological aspects. These factors made the changes possible. Such factors are at work in all human societies and several single examples of similar development of sense may be found in other languages.

In Rumanian and Albanian, however, there are not only single examples but a high number of parallel changes of sense, most of which are not known in Greek, Vulgar Latin or in the modern Romance languages and are not simple, readily explicable Acommon sense@ changes. Therefore, they cannot be explained by chance or by general socio-cultural or psychological factors only. As also stated by Sandfeld, they were created in a period of common and simultaneous development of the two languages. This must have been the period (or part of that period) of the Latin influence on Albanian and the Romanization of the ancestors of the Rumanians.

Before discussing this question, it must be emphasized again that the large majority of common elements in Albanian and Rumanian derive from an ancient language, spoken once by the ancestors of both populations. However, the extensive similarity between the two languages regarding the Latin influence (see above) can only be explained by contact during several centuries of Roman domination. A symbiosis between Vlachs and Albanians in the region of Ulcinj B Ragusa B Prizren in the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries is documented in Serbian deeds of gift (cf. above, p. 38). ( From earlier periods, no deeds of gift are known.) There are also Rumanian loanwords in Albanian (cf. above, pp. 37- 38). Consequently, it would not be surprizing to find Albanian loanwords in Rumanian. This possibility is also admitted by Rosetti. One would not expect a large number of such words, because these peoples“ way of life and their level of civilization were similar.

The important Northern Rumanian word sat “village“ shows a phonetic peculiarity of Albanian, namely the loss of its first vowel : Latin fossatum “ditch, entrenchment“ > Alb. fshat “village“ > (modern) N. Rum. sat “village“. In N. Rum. texts from the 16th century, there is fsat, with the sense in Codicele VoroneŪean of “l|caÕ īn cāmp“ “dwelling, house in the field“. In contrast to the northern dialect, in the corresponding Arumanian word the vowel in the first syllable is preserved, because this dialect borrowed the Greek form: Latin fossatum > Greek (we give here the New Greek form) jousato “army“ > Arum. fusįti, fus|Ūi “trenchwork“.

In the case of sat, the sound pattern proves its borrowing from Albanian. Otherwise, there are no certain criteria, and about a number of Rumanian lexical elements one may only assume with more or less probability a borrowing from Albanian: droaie “great number, multitude; crowd, heap“ (Poghirc: Aprobably a recent loan from Albanian@, not accepted by Russu); ghimpe “thorn“ (Poghirc); grap| “harrow“ (PuÕcariu; not accepted by Poghirc); moÕ “old man, ancestor“ (G. Meyer and E.  abej; not accepted by Poghirc). Rosetti mentions gresie, hameÕ, moÕ, and pārāu, but adds: AWe have no criteria to prove this; the possibility should not, of course, be excluded.@

* This word, also existing in Greek and in Bulgarian, is of Old Germanic origin (fara); cf. Sandfeld LB 1930, p. 97.

The numerous correspondences between Rumanian and Albanian derive mainly from the same ancient language, once spoken by the ancestors of the Albanians and the Rumanians. The Albanians have largely preserved their original language, although they borrowed very many elements from Latin during six centuries of Roman domination in the Balkan peninsula. The ancestors of the Rumanians, on the other hand, changed their language to Latin, preserving only some elements from the ancient idiom. The correspondences regarding Latin elements, however B numerous expressions in common, changes of meaning of Latin words, etc. B must have been created during a period of close contact between the two populations, during the age of Latin influence.

Regarding vocabulary, these same possibilities exist, but it is difficult to decide for each word whether it was present in the ancestral language (i.e., in the substratum of Rumanian) or borrowed at a later period. There are no reliable criteria in this respect. However, it is most probable that THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE LEXICAL ELEMENTS SHARED BY RUMANIAN AND ALBANIAN DERIVE FROM THE SUBSTRATUM, and are not loans. As stated by Treimer:

Poghirc (in ILR vol. II, 1969, pp. 327B356) discussed the lexical elements of Rumanian which may derive from the substratum, a total of 142. Russu gave an extensive presentation of such elements (Etnogeneza romānilor, 1981), listing 198 words. Not a single of the etymologies from other idioms than the ancient Balkan language whose continuation is Albanian is certain, however. The only reliable criterion remains the presence of the word in question in Albanian. Rosetti (ILR 1986, pp. 240B255) presents Athe common elements of the Rumanian and the Albanian vocabulary@, without referring to the substratum. (In the index, p. 794, as Asubstratum languages@, Dacian, Illyrian, and Thracian are given.)

In the following list, we use a similar approach. It must be stated that with our present knowledge, it is not possible to create a complete list of Rumanian words which unquestionably originate from the substratum. It is, however, probable that most of the words in the list belong to this group of words, but with the following reservations: (1) It cannot be excluded that a few of them may be borrowings from Albanian. (Those which have been considered probable or possible loanwords, above, pp. 71B72, are not taken up in this list.) (2) It is scarcely probable that all lexical elements inherited from the substratum of Rumanian still exist in Albanian. In the course of time, words disappear and may be replaced by synonyms or by loanwords. Therefore, a number of words which no longer are found in Albanian may derive from the substratum. The chance that this is so is greatest for lexical elements pertaining to the same semantic categories to which most of the words shared with Albanian belong: shepherd terms, animals and plants with which a shepherd population may be familiar. Future research will probably add a number of such lexical elements to this list. (3) A few etymologies are not quite certain: thus, Alb. baltė and mįgulė and corresponding Rumanian balt|, m|gur|, may be early Slavic loanwords, bollė may have been borrowed from Serbo-Croatian. The connection of Rum. noian and Alb. ujanė may also be questioned.

A list of words which have been assumed to originate from the substratum of Rumanian (Poghirc in ILR vol. II 1969, and Russu, Etnogeneza 1981) is presented in Illyés Ethnic Continuity 1992, pp. 231B239.

Albanian dh is pronounced as th in English “they“; Alb. th as th in “three“; Alb. j as “year“ (or i in Rum. iad); Alb. xh as j in “jester“, Alb. y as u in French mur (cf. Nelo Drizari, AlbanianBEnglish and EnglishBAlbanian Dictionary, New York, 1957, p. IV.)

Remark: brānz|, without an Albanian counterpart, is, however, connected with rānz| (Rosetti ILR 1986, p. 253, referring to Bariƒ).

Out of these 89 words, 24 are specifically related to shepherding. To the shepherd terminology in the strict sense of the word must be added the names of plants and animals encountered by a population living in high mountains, as well as adjectives of general significance but which also have a distinct sense pertaining to shepherding: Albanian balash, balosh means “white“, but also “with a white spot on the forehead“ obviously pertaining to animals. Also words such as c|tun and argea denote basic conditions for a shepherd population. The total number of words of significance for the everyday life of shepherds among these 89 words common to Rumanian and Albanian is at least 60 = 66 % of all. Of the rest, most denote basic human notions and conditions, such as parts of the human body and family relations.

Many of these lexical elements are among the most important words of the Rumanian language. Estimations can only be approximative because of the uncertainty as regards the substratal origin of a number of words. The following studies may give some idea about the issue: studying the main word stock of Rumanian (Afondul lexical principal@) A. Graur considered that 22 of the words assumed to derive from the substratum belong to this set of words. (This may not apply exactly to the words presented here, where only those existing in Albanian are taken into consideration.) Another indicaton of the great significance of these words was given by Macrea, who stated that they were most productive, giving each an average of 4 derivations (as compared to words of Latin origin, somewhat more than 3, and of Slavic origin, about 2 derivations).

Unspecific nouns 8 C 9%

Man 8 C 9% plants

Nature, geography 9 C 10%

Animals 10 C 11% terms of

Plants 12 C 13.5% shepherding

Terms of shepherding 24 C 27%

Bartoli considered that Dalmatian belonged to the East Latin group of the Romance languages. However, this is not entirely true. The vowel system of Dalmatian was, at the beginning of the 7th century, probably the same as that of the Western Romance languages. Thus, for example, the development of Latin /ß/ was different from that in Rumanian. The consonant system was different from that of the Western Romance languages and showed similarities to that of Rumanian (cf., for instance, the preservation of p, t, k, and of pt). Latin ct, cs changed to pt, ps only in Lat. octo > Dalmatian guapto, respectively Lat. coxa > Dalmatian kopsa. (In most other words, it was later simplified to t , under the influence of Venetian.)

Also the gn > mn change, usual in Rumanian, appears only in single Dalmatian words: Lat. cognatus > Dalmatian komnut, Rum. cumnat; there are also examples of the mn > au change: Lat. columna > Dalmatian kelauna; Lat. damnum > Rum. daun|.

Significant are the lexical similarities, words and fine variations of meaning, SHARED BY ITALIAN DIALECTS, DALMATIAN, ALBANIAN, AND RUMANIAN. As shown above (p. 48), these are relics of the age when there was a continuum of Latin-speaking populations from Italy through Veglia and the other Dalmatian isles, and the Istrian peninsula, to the Balkans. To the examples given above, the following may be added here (Densusianu, HLR 1975 p. 227):

Latin *excotere, Dalmatian skutro, Rumanian scoate “to take/draw/pull out, to produce“: Dalmatian blaj me skutro joint daint, N. Rum. vreau s|-mi scot un dinte “I want a tooth to be pulled“.

Lat. singulus, Dalmatian sanglo, Rum. singur “alone; only“: Dalmatian sanglo signaur nuestro, Rum. singurul st|pān al nostru “our only Lord“. Singulus was in most other Romance languages replaced by solus, although it appears in a number of dialects.

THE ORIGINS OF THE RUMANIANS