CC BY
34
THE SOVIET STANDARD ROMANI LANGUAGE
OF 1920s-1930s: LINGUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS IN A SOCIO-CULTURAL CONTEXT
1. Introduction: Soviet Standard Romani
The creation of the standard language based on the North Russian Romani dialect in the mid 1920s was perhaps the most large-scale and, at the same time, perhaps the most unsuccessful of all attempts to codify the Romani language.
In many respects this “standard language” resembles many other languages of the “smaller nations” of the Soviet Union created in this period in the frame of the first, rather pluralistic, stage of the Soviet national and language politics. Russification on all linguistic levels and Sovietization in terms of the texts’ content and genre characteristics were substantial features of such idioms. On the other hand, among the creators of “Romani standard language” there were many people with profound knowledge of the genuine Romani dialects and folklore.
In 1926 professor M. Sergievskij, a well-known Romance philologist, developed for Soviet Standard Romani (with the help of the young Romani intellectuals N. Dudarova and N. Pankov) a special writing system, based on the Cyrillic alphabet. North Russian Romani was chosen as a dialect base for the new standard language. In 1927 the first issue of the Gypsy literary journal Romany Zoria ‘Romani Sunrise’ was published, it was the beginning of the short but rather fruitful period of the development of the Soviet Romani literature. This literature represents a nearly unique episode in the history of Roma’s artistic literature. The Soviet Romani literature, which only existed for eleven to twelf years (1927-1938), followed pretty closely the demands of the official ideology, however, it urged, and quite sincerely, as we may suppose, the young Roma writers to create a genuine literature from nothing. The main theme of Romani prose is a comparison of the “old” and the “modern” life of the Roma in Russia with certainly putting emphasis on the striking advantages of the latter
one. Among the about 250 books and leaflets edited in these years we see besides the schoolbooks and artistic literature, also the translations of the works of the Russian and Soviet writers (Pushkin, Tolstoy, Gorky), enormous number of political writings, as well as booklets with various practical recommendations (on the Soviet Romani literature see [Kalinin, Rusakov 2006]; the list of publications on the Soviet Standard Romani see: (http://www.liloro.ru/library/romano_catalogo.htm)).
Among the other functional spheres of the Soviet Standard Romani use pedagogical activity (till 1938) and the performances of the Theater Romen should be mentioned (the latter staged plays on Romani only till the end of thirties, on the “stage Romani” see [Lemon 2002]).
The short lifespan of Soviet Standard Romani ended in 1938 when after the change of Stalin’s national policy the rather huge amount of the new standard minority languages were banned. The very fact of Soviet Standard Romani existence is blotted out in the memory of Russian Roma.
In general both historic conditions of Soviet Standard Romani creation and results of its short existence provoke certain criticism. Among the common, essentially justified, blames with respect to the Soviet Standard Romani are: its artificial character; a narrow dialectal base (the speakers of North Russian Romani did not constitute the overwhelming majority of the Roma in the Soviet Union, and their dialect was quite alien to the speakers of the other Romani dialects widespread on the territory of the Soviet Union); its Russified character (the North Russian Romani is strongly interfered with Russian); political character of the project (the books and leaflets published were for the most part translations of political and “social-political” [obscestvenno-politiceskij] writings as well as strongly politicized fiction); thus, Soviet Standard Romani (as other “minor Soviet standard languages”) was penetrated by the traits of the Soviet totalitarian discourse.
All these considerations are essentially true. But from the other side we should take into account that: a huge corpus of texts based on one of the Romani dialects has been created (its size is comparable to that of the texts published in all other Romani dialects); most part of these texts was written or translated by native speakers of North Russian Romani; many of the people involved into that activity were full
of sincere enthusiasm and were eager to develop a real standard Romani language.
The main goals of the present paper are: to examine the Soviet Standard Romani texts and to compare them with the North Russian Romani folkloric texts; to study the pressure of standardization on the realization of several linguistic phenomena, characteristic of NRD; as a result to answer the question whether the material of Soviet Standard Romani may help us to study Romani.
2. Lexicon
Examples such as (1) are sometimes quoted in order to demonstrate the strictly Russified character of Soviet Standard Romani texts. But if we disregard the ideological character of this text, we may observe that the amount of foreign lexical elements does not differ crucially from that in the scientific or political texts in other European languages1.
(1) Октябрьско революцыя дыя екх право сарэ трудяшшененгэ, савэ бы нацыональностяса енэ на сыс.
Okt ’abr ’sko revol ’ucija diya
October_ADJ.NOM.SG.F revolution(F).NOM.SG give.PRET.3SG
jekh pravo sare trud ’assen ’enge,
one.NOM law(M).NOM.SG all.OBL.PL worker(M).DAT.SG
save by nacyonal’nost’asa jone
which.NOM.PL COND nationality(F).INSTR.SG they.NOM na sys.
NEG COP.PRET.3
‘The October Revolution gave one law all work people regardless of their nationality’. [Ventsel 1933: 103] (loanwords from Russian underlined).
However, quite a different picture is found in fiction. Table 1 compares the number of Russian lexical borrowings in Soviet Standard Romani fiction (Rom Xvas ’u) and in North Russian Romani folkloric texts (other texts). We may state that from the lexical point of view Soviet Standard Romani is less Russified than North Russian
1 Cf. e. g. “Flexionmorphologie dient in erster Linie dazu, grammatische Kategorien auszudrucken” [Boretzky 1994: 29].
Romani (even in the state fixed by Dobrovolskij at the end of the nineteenth century). The difference results from the very restricted character of code switching and nearly absence of true code mixing phenomena in Soviet Standard Romani fiction (see Section 3).
Table 1. The number of Russian borrowings (except i‘and’ and a ‘while, and’) per 500 words
Rom Xvas’u [Svetlovo 1938] 24
Bezrucka [Abramenko 2006] 78
Graf Kalo [Eloeva, Rusakov 1990] 107
[Dobrovolsky 1908] 52
There are two basic patterns of the enrichment of the lexicon in Soviet Standard Romani. The first one is the use of “old” Romani words (not used in oral practice or belonging to the passive lexicon): kayn’itko ‘police sergeant’, dynar’i ‘farm-labourer’. Sometimes the Polish (or polonized?) variants are used: lengi (луга) ‘meadows’. In some books both “Romani” and Russian variants are found side by side: dynar’i (rabotn’iko). More archaic forms of Russian borrowings are used, too: kol’i ‘when’ and not kada as in the present-day North Russian Romani texts. The second way of lexical enrichment is represented by the use of neologisms (often derived according to the Russian model): chindl’apre gr’ende ‘receipts for horses’.
Thus, in terms of their lexica the Soviet Standard Romani texts are at the same time more conservative and more innovative than North Russian Romani narratives.
3. Code-switching and code-mixing phenomena
There are two main strategies in the Soviet Standard Romani as regards intersentential code-switching: a) the “conventional” strategy: all kinds of direct speech (Roma communicating with Roma, Roma communicating with non-Roma, non-Roma communicating with non-Roma) are in Romani (this is typical of the works by A. Germano, L. Svetlovo, and others) and b) the “realistic” strategy: the direct speech uttered in Russian “in reality” is represented in Russian in Soviet Standard Romani as well:
(2) А о рай проракирдя: Войдите.
A o raj prorakird’a: Vojdite.
and ART barin said come_in
‘And the barin said: Come in’. [Iljinsko 1934: 44]
Sometimes we may see more “sophisticated” use of intersenten-tial code-switching. For example in one of M. Bezliudsko’s short stories in the beginning we meet the Russian talk “in Russian”, and then — in the (Russian in “reality”) narrative of one of characters about his past — the Russian talk transmitted in Romani. So in such cases the switches to Russian mark the very language characteristic of certain character2.
In the Soviet Standard Romani texts intersentential codeswitching is not used as a stylistic device, which is very characteristic of the North Russian Romani texts (marking the transition from the narration to direct speech and vice verse, marking the culmination moment, and so on, see [Rusakov 2001].
Cases of intrasentential code-switching (and code mixing, if we differ these two phenomena) are not encountered in the Soviet Standard Romani texts, except for isolated Russian words in Romani grammatical setting, which may be interpreted as borrowings.
The only exceptions are encountered in the Rom-Lebedev’s play Kham na blato ‘The Sun at the March’, which reflects — to a greater or lesser extent — the real Romani speech, characteristic of the speakers of the North Russian Romani:
(3) Гаджэнгирэ буты кэрна, косят, жнут.
Gadzengire buty kerna,
nonGypy(M):GEN.PL:NOM.PL work(F).NOM.SG do.PRES.3PL
kos ’at, znut.
mow.PRES.3PL reap.PRES.3PL
‘They do the nonGypsy work, they mow, they reap’.
[Rom-Lebedev 1931: 29]
2
This strategy has a certain tradition in Russian classical literature. So in Tolstoy’s “War and peace” we meet — besides the “realistic” strategy, the cases where the speech of francophone characters (Napoleon, and some others) is transmitted via French only at the beginning, and goes on farther in Russian.
I should remind that the extensive use of code mixing — and among them of unadapted verb forms — is one of the most striking traits of the speech in North Russian Romani cf. [Rusakov 2001].
The delimitation of code mixing and borrowing is a very difficult theoretical problem e. g. [Muysken 2000: 69-75]. I can note only that the very character of the written text in the new created standard language supposes the deliberate enriching and elaborating of the lexicon and so prevents the inserting of the nonce-borrowings on the clause-level.
4. Grammar
4.1. Voice and valence-decreasing derivation
Both in the North Russian Romani and in the Soviet Standard Romani there are three ways to express voice and valency-decreasing operations:
1) “Old” (Common-Romani) transitives derived from the participle of the transitive verbs or from the adjective using the formant -jov-;
2) “Reflexive” synthetic forms with -pe;
3) Analytic constructions formed with copula and participle of transitive verbs.
Both -pe forms and analytic constructions are represented practically in all Romani dialects, but their structural and functional characteristics depend on the surrounding languages;
Also widespread are constructions formed with the present or past tense form of the copula + participles of three “posture” verbs (te beshes ‘to sit, to sit down’, to terd’os ‘to stand, to stand up’, to pas ’os ‘to lie, to lie down’) and of the verb te soves ‘to sleep’. Such constructions are encountered in some dialects, its functional loading (expression of the contrast between STATE and ENTERING STATE) makes it basically an aspectual device (on valency alteration in Romani dialects see [Matras 2002: 119-128; Elsik, Matras 2006: 211-217].
We may see in the Table 2 the comparison between the distribution of voice and voice-like forms in Soviet Standard Romani and North Russian Romani.
We should note that both in Soviet Standard Romani and in North Russian Romani, the synthetic “passives”/intransitives (they are traditionally treated as formal conjugational classes in the grammars of North Russian Romani. cf. [Istomin 1900; Sergievsky 1931;
Ventsel 1964]) derive mostly from the adjectives, the deverbal derivatives often lack for their primary counterparts (te phag’os ‘break (intr.)’ — *te phages‘break (tr.)’). The relative productivity of -jov formations is supported by the opposition between the -jov- and -kir-verbs, very important for the expression of valence relations in North Russian Romani [Abramenko 2006; Knyazev 2007]. There are no obvious differences between North Russian Romani and Soviet Standard Romani in the use of these forms.
Table 2. The distribution of different “voice” forms in Soviet Standard Romani and North Russian Romani (per 400 verb forms except copula)
“synthetic” passive pe forms analytic forms sys besto etc.
Rom Xvas’u [Svetlovo 1938] 10 42 10 14
Graf Kalo and Dujpsala [Eloeva, Rusakov 1990] 8 28 3 12
Bezrucka [Abramenko 2006] 11 17 4 0
The use of analytic passive is rather rare (as it is in the Russian fiction). Nearly all forms encountered in the texts analyzed have resul-tative or stative meaning:
(4) кхэр {...) учякирдо сыс зэлэнонэ KpacKaca
kher {...) ucakirdo sys zelonone kraska-sa
house paint:PART COP.PRET.3 green dye:SG-INSTR ‘The house was painted with green dye’. [Svetlovo 1938: 3]
Amongst examples examined there is only one real “actional” passive:
(5) лакиро дума сыс пиририскирды ваврэ холямэ глосаса
lakiro duma sys piririskirdy vavre xol ’ame
her thought COP.PRET.3 interrupt:PART other angry glosa-sa
voice: SG-INSTR
‘Her thought was interrupted by the angry voice’. [ibid.: 15]
The construction of the type “besto sy” is very widespread in the North Russian Romani and Soviet Standard Romani texts, despite the absence of similar constructions in Russian:
(6) бэшэл дэ карета
besel de kareta
sit.PRES.3SG in coach(F).NOM.SG
‘He gets into the coach’. [Eloeva, Rusakov 1990: 56; Graf Kalo] vs.
(7) (...) кай кокоро бэшто сы
(...) kaj kokoro besto sy
where himself sit:PART COP.PRES.3
‘(...) where he was sitting himself [ibid.: 58; Graf Kalo]
Several Soviet Standard Romani authors also use this construction with other intransitive verbs (also denoting STATE or
PROCESS):
(8) о рома сыс лодлэ дро одо вэш
o roma sys lodl-e dro odo ves
ART Roma COP.PRET.3 live:PART-PL in this forest
‘The Roma lived in this forest’. [Iljinsko 1934: 5]
The most widespread both in North Russian Romani and in in Soviet Standard Romani are ^e-verbs.
They constitute more than a half of all passive-like formations in the texts.
The overwhelming majority of them mirror the relations between primary and derived verbs characteristic of corresponding Russian “reflexive” verbs:
(9) коли змекьяпэ рупови роса.
koli z-mekj-a-pe rupovi rosa
when PREF-let:PRET-3SG-REFL silver dew
‘When the silver dew fell down’. [Svetlovo 1938: 4]
cf. Russian s-pustit’-sja, where the root pust’ has the meaning ‘let’(= Romani te mekes).
The majority of pe-derivates are non-correlative ones, that is, their semantics is non-compositional (10) or they are derived using prefix and suffix simultaneously (cf. (9)). So they are loan-translations par excellence.
(10a) te lel
‘to take’
(10b) te lel-pe
‘to begin doing sth. ’
It is interesting that the distribution of the Soviet Standard Romani -pe verbs according their derivational semantics is very near to that of the Russian -sja verbs (see Table 3).
Table 3. Soviet Standard Romani -pe verbs (100 verb forms from Rom Xvas ’u) and Russian -sja verbs (4637 verb forms analyzed [Say, Kalashnikova 2006])
Types of derivatives Soviet Standard Romani Russian
non-correlative 57 54,0%
reflexives 3 2,5%
passives 1 2,0%
de- and autocausatives 25 32,0%
other 14 9,5%
The share of proper reflexive and passive verbs is extremely low both in Soviet Standard Romani and in Russian. Soviet Standard Romani strongly mirrors the Russian model in this fragment of its lexico-grammatical system. Hence, we have here imported grammati-calization, which is fulfilled via lexical analogy. Calquing of the Russian sja- verb is a pattern that enriches the lexical system of the Soviet Standard Romani (and North Russian Romani), rather than its grammatical potential.
4.2. Tense and aspect forms in North Russian Romani and Soviet Standard Romani narratives
4.2.1 Some preliminary remarks on the tense and aspect in North Russian Romani. Three grammatical features belonging to the tense-aspect sphere will be considered.
a) The borrowing of the system of Russian verbal prefixes changed the North Russian Romani tense-aspectual system. However, the current North Russian Romani system is nearer to the German one than to “classical” Slavic aspectual system: both prefixed und unprefixed forms may have perfective and imperfective interpretation de-
pending on semantics of the verb stem, the semantics of the prefix and context (see in detail [Rusakov 2001]).
b) In the North Russian Romani tales the main narrative strategy is an interchange of preterit verb forms (with mostly perfective interpretation) and present tense forms (sometimes with future meaning). It can be illustrated by the example of the temporal scheme of the beginning of Bezruchka-tale:
(The introductory part: Pret.-Pret.-Pret — with imperfective meaning)-Pres-Pres-Pres- (Direct speech) -Pres-Pret-Pres-Pret-Pret-(Dir. speech) -Pres-Pres-Pres-Pret-Pres- (Dir. speech) -Pret-Pret.
The temporal scheme of the beginning of Bezruchka-tale.
The appearance of the present and preterit forms is motivated partly by the contrast between the “background” and “foreground” information.
Such a situation is quite typical for the folklore-like narratives in the other Romani dialects and some European languages, in particular, it is widely represented in North Russian folk tales.
c) Imperfect is encountered in North Russian Romani narratives very rarely. It is completely absent (in its factual meaning) in Dobrovolskij’s texts as well as in “Bezruchka” and “Graf Kalo”. There are three tokens of imperfect in two other tales narrated by Zinaida Grohovskaya (rec. by O. Abramenko) and one token in the story “Two brothers”. In all the cases the event described by the imperfect form belongs to the sphere of the remote past separated from the time of the main action.
More widespread are imperfect forms in the stories about past life:
(11) Ну джиндэ дэ шатры рома, рикирдэ грэн, дадывэс ратькир-нас дэ дава форо, тася традэнас дрэ явир форо... Кэрнас о шатры...
Nu dzind-e de satry roma, rikird-e
well live.PRET-3PL in tents Roma keep.PRET-3PL gren, dadyves rat ’kir-n-as de
horse:ACC:PL today spent_night.PRES-3PL-REMOTE in
dava foro, tas ’a trad-en-as de javir
this town tomorrow go.PRES-3PL-REMOTE in other
foro...Ker-n-as o satry...
town make.PRES-3PL-REMOTE ART tents
‘The Roma lived in tents, had the horses, today they would
spent the night in this town, tomorrow they would go to the
other town... (Roma) were making the tents...’
[Eloeva, Rusakov 1990: 46; «Me tuke rosphenava...»].
Thus, Imperfect forms designate habitual actions in (remote) past. This property of Imperfect meaning was well described by T. V. Ventzel in her early Romani grammar: “When the action takes place many times or long time ago, the verbs are used in the past tense (imperfect)”3 [Ventsel 1936: 42], cf. a more “scholarly” description of Imperfect as “imperfective past” in her later grammar [Ventsel 1964: 76].
In all likelihood, the North Russian Romani Imperfect (and, very likely, generally “common-Romani” Imperfect, see [Matras 2002: 152-153]) is reminiscent of tenses with the “retrospective shift” marker, as described by Plungian [2001: 75-84]. Indeed, the North Russian Romani Imperfect is characterized by a bundle of meanings typical of “discontinuous past” tenses (remote past, habitual, counter-factual).
4.2.2 Tense and aspect in the Soviet Standard Romani narratives. Soviet Standard Romani writers use different narrative strategies in their writings. Two of them are examined below.
The “Romen” actor Mixail Iljinsko was one of the most gifted Soviet Romani prose-teller. Most of his stories (published in three little collections) are narrated from the first person. They typically consist of two parts:
— a “frame” part: describes the author’s wandering and his meetings with the various groups of Roma.
— a “nucleus” part: the history of the past time, where one of the protagonists tells the story of his/her life.
Every part of the stories is characterized by its own narrative strategy.
3
“Ko^h кэрн6эн rop^aro gpo прогмн6эн 6yT Moro h^h rop^acro дpэвaн rapa, raaroro cm gpo rapaTyHO BpeMe” (Koli keriben kerlape dro progyiben but mole ili kerlaspe drevan yara, glagole sy dro yaratuno vr ’em ’o).
For the first “frame” parts (depicting author’s experience) the “folklore”-like style of use of aspectual forms is typical; we see here the interchange of Present and Preterit forms:
(12) Дрэ єкх шатра загьшм, дыкхава пхуромны бэшлы сы... кэ-равэла со-то. ^рдєм. ..
Dre jekh satra zagyj-om, dykh-ava phuromny in one tent enter.PRET-1SG see.PRS-1SG old_woman
besly sy... kerav-ela so-to.
sit:PART COP.PRS.3 cook.PRES.3SG something
Kerd’-om... make.PRET-1SG
‘I entered (pret.) in one tent, see (pres.) an old woman is sitting, cooks (pres.) something. I made. (pret.)’ [Iljinsko 1934: 19]
For the main (“old”) parts the use of Preterit forms and some Imperfect forms (with habitual meanings) is typical:
(13) Мэ сом-ас дрэван гожо, ман художники злэнас про патриня
Me som-as drevan gozo, man xudozniki
I COP.1SG-PRET very pretty I.ACC painters
z-l-en-as pro patrin’a
PREF-take.PRES-3PL-REMOTE for pictures
‘I was very pretty, the painters made (imp., habitual) pictures of me’.
[ibid.: 20]
It is interesting to compare two Iljinsko’s [n. d.] short stories belonging to one and the same collection. The first one Bori ‘Daughter-in-law’ is written from the third person and describes the old life, the time before the revolution; the Imperfect forms are used, although they are not very numerous. The second short-story Ruzen’ka is devoted to the modern “kolkhoz” life, here the Imperfect forms are not
used at all. So, we may conclude that for Ilynsko the Imperfect is bound with the description of the past life, of the life before the revolution, having, thus, an “absolute”, nearly political meaning.
Leksa Svetlovo was a translator of the works of Russian and Soviet writers (Pushkin, Korolenko, Gorky, Sholohov), besides this he was an author of the novel Rom Xvas ’u the most voluminous artistic works of the Soviet Romani literature.
The main line of narration is expressed in this work basically with the help of Preterit forms (unprefixed and prefixed) with perfective and imperfective meaning.
The use of Imperfect is extremely rare. There are only 6 cases of Imperfect with factual meaning per 1000 first verbal forms of this novel. 5 of these 6 Imperfective forms have habitual meaning:
(14) кицы молы мангэлас тэ янав лэскэ грэс...
Kicy moly mang-el-as te
how_many times ask.PRES-3SG-REMOTE SBJV jan-av leske gres
bring.PRES-3SG he:DAT horse:ACC
‘How many times he would ask me to bring the horse to him! ’
[Svetlovo 1938: 20]
We may see in the Table 4 the comparison of the distribution of the prefixed verbal forms in the North Russian Romani texts gathered in 1984-1986 in Vyrica (see [Rusakov 2001: 315] and in the “Rom Xvas’u”.
Table 4. Distribution of prefixed forms
North Russian Romani texts Rom Xvas ’u [Svetlovo 1938]
All verbal forms (without Russian borrowings) approx. 500 309
All prefixed forms 107 (approx. 21,4%) 114 (36,9%)
Among them:
Preterit 160 131
Prefixed forms 56 (35%) 64 (49,9%)
Synthetic future 72 23
Prefixed forms 19 (26,3%) 20 (87%)
Present 168 39
Prefixed forms 18 1 (10,7%) 4 (10,2%)
We may see that the percentage of prefixed forms in “Rom Xvas’u” is a little bit higher. It may be explained by the aim to enrich
the lexicon which characterizes the literary texts in Soviet Standard Romani.
The distribution of the prefixed forms according to the tense forms is very similar in both samples. The only considerable difference is the prevailing of prefixed forms in “Rom Xvas’u” among the synthetic future forms. We see here the further step in the developing of Russia influence: as in Russian “present” verb forms need — for their interpretation as future forms — the indication of the belonging of the verb to the perfective class. In “Rom Xvas’u” such indication is expressed by the Russian prefix.
4.3. Grammar: summary
The texts of Soviet Standard Romani authors retain the basic characteristics of the North Russian Romani tense-aspectual and valency alteration systems. We may see in these texts the combination of the continuing Russian influence and of the development of internal dialect tendencies.
In the domain of the voice and valence alteration we see the very strong Russian influence, especially in the -pe verbs. Their distribution from the point of view of their “derivational semantics” practically mirrors the distribution of Russian -sja verbs in Russian fiction texts. At the same time in the Soviet Standard Romani texts the genuine North Russian Romani features are widely presented — the retaining of the constructions of the besto sy- type and the opposition of jov-and kir- verbs.
In the domain of the tense-aspect system we have nearly the same situation. On the one hand we may see the partial copying of Russian aspectual system very near to that in North Russian Romani. On the other hand, the inner dialect or even common-Romani tendencies continue to develop. I mean the rather specific use of the imperfect, which is being an important (perhaps semi-conscious) stylistic device under the pen of some of Soviet Standard Romani authors. As in Russian the use of the certain tense-aspect forms in the narrative sequence depends on the individual stylistic preferences of the author.
5. Conclusions
In general, we may state that despite of its artificial (from the sociopolitical point of view) character Soviet Standard Romani did not
change in radical way the development of linguistic tendencies inherent to North Russian Romani. The Soviet Standard Romani uses the means of lexical enrichment characterizing more or less all developing standard languages. In some aspects the Soviet Standard Romani texts are even less Russified than North Russian Romani ones. I mean the use of code switching and code mixing phenomena. In the field of the grammar the two “idioms” are also rather close to each other. The specific stylistic component peculiar to the standard languages was also initially developing in Soviet Standard Romani. We may conclude that the relations between Soviet Standard Romani and North Russian Romani Dialect don’t differ fundamentally from the usual relations between a standard language and the idiom which is its dialectal base. Thus, the texts in Soviet Standard Romani may be used as an important additional source and specific evidence when studying the tendencies of the development of Romani dialects.
References
Abramenko 2006 — О. А. Абраменко. Очерки языка и культуры цыган Северо-Запада России: русска и лотфитка Рома. СПб.: Анима, 2006. Boretzky 1994 — N. Boretzky. Grammatik des Kalderas-Dialekts mit Texten und Glossar. Wiesbaden:Harrassovitz , 1994.
Dobrovolsky 1908 — В. Н. Добровольский. Киселевские цыгане. СПб.: Тип. Имп. Акад. наук, 1908.
Eloeva, Rusakov 1990 — Ф. А. Елоева, А. Ю. Русаков. Проблемы языковой интерференции (Цыганские диалекты Европы). Л.: Изд-во ЛГУ, 1990.
Elak, Matras 2006 — V. Elak, Ya. Matras. Markedness and Language Change: The Romani Sample. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006. Iljinsko 1934 — М. Ильинско. Шатрытко яг. М.: Художественная литература, 1934.
Iljinsko n. d. — М. Ильинско. Бори; Бурда; Руженька / M. Il’insko. Bori; Burda; Ruzhen’ka // Liloro: Сетевая инициатива, посвященная цыганской культуре [См. также: М. Ильинско, И. Ром-Лебедев.
Роспхэныбэна тэ патриня. М.: Гослитиздат, 1938. С. 20-39, 40-56]. (http://www.philology.ru/liloro/romany_library.htm)
Istomin 1900 — П. Истомин (Патканов). Цыганский язык: Грамматика и руководство к практическому изучению разговорной речи современных русских цыган. М.: 0 Tipografija “Russkogo Tovarishchestva pechatnogo i izdatelskogo dela”.
Kalinin, Rusakov 2006 — В. Калинин, А. Русаков. Литература на цыганском языке в СССР // О. А. Абраменко. Очерки языка и культуры цыган Северо-Запада России: русска и лотфитка Рома. СПб.: Анима, 2006. C. 266-287.
Knyazev 2007 — М. Ю. Князев. Показатель -кир- в севернорусском диалекте цыганского языка и каузативно-инхоативная альтернация: Курсовая работа. СПбГУ, СПб., 2007.
Lemon 2002 — A. M. Lemon. “Form” and “function” in Soviet stage Romani: Modeling metapragmatics through performance institutions // Language in Society. Vol. 31. 2002. P. 29-64.
Matras 2002 — Ya. Matras. Romani: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Muysken 2000 — P. Muysken. Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Codemixing. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Plungyan 2001 — В. А. Плунгян. Общая морфология: Введение в проблематику. М.: Эдиториал УРСС, 2001.
Rom-Lebedev 1931 — И. Ром-Лебедев. Кхам дро блато. М.: Центриздат, 1931.
Rusakov 2001 — A. Rusakov. The North Russian Romani dialect: Interference and code switching // O. Dahl, M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.). Circum-Baltic Languages. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. P. 313-337.
Say, Kalashnikova 2006 — С. С. Сай, К. В. Калашникова. Системные отношения между классами русских рефлексивных глаголов в связи с их частотными характеристиками (по данным корпусного исследования // В. С. Храковский и др. (ред.). Проблемы типологии и общей лингвистики: Междунар. конф., посвящен.
100-летию со дня рождения проф. А. А. Холодовича: [Мат-лы]. СПб.: Нестор-История, 2006. С. 56-64.
Sergievsky 1931 — М. В. Сергиевский. Цыганский язык: Краткое руководство по грамматике и правописанию. М.: Центриздат, 1931.
Svetlovo 1938 — Л. Светлово. Ром Хвасю. М.: Гослитиздат, 1938.
Ventsel 1933 — Т. В. Вентцеле. Элементарно граматико. Ваш 3 и 4 бэрш сыкляибэ. М.: Учпедгизоиздательство, 1933.
Ventsel 1936 — Т. В. Вентцеле. Лылвари пиро романы чиб. Ваш набут-лылварэнгири школа. М.: Государственно учебно-педагогическо издательство, 1936.
Ventsel 1964 — Т. В. Вентцель. Цыганский язык: севернорусский диалект. М.: Наука, 1964.
