Dialects

◀ Introduction

●

Transcription ▶

---

The study of phenomena pertaining to different language levels on Bulgarian linguistic territory has demonstrated that there are several types of dialect macro-divisions. Стойков, С. 1993: 83–87 The east-west division was the first to be recognized: having been noticed by the mid-nineteenth century, it is now universally acknowledged. It was initially believed that the contrasting continuants of ѣ (jat’) were the only distinguishing marker between the eastern and the western part of the Bulgarian territory but research done by Стойков, С. 1963/Стойков, С. 2008: 170–184; Младенов, М. С. 1973/Младенов, М. С. 2008: 104–123 Stojkov and Mladenov showed that there is an entire bundle of isoglosses, of which the jat’ isogloss is just one, that divides the eastern from the western Bulgarian dialects. Among them there are various linguistic phenomena Генчев, С. 1968; Németh, J. 1956: 11 and some ethnographic boundaries. The major east-west isogloss of Balkan Turkish also runs in parallel with this bundle of isoglosses.

Different opinions have been expressed regarding the chronology of the east-west division: that it is Младенов, М. С. 1973/Младенов, М. С. 2008: 120archaic, that it goes back to Цыхун, Г. 1999: 26genetic distinctions between the dialects of Slavic settlers in the Balkans, or that it is, on the contrary, Стойков, С. 2008: 220; Младенова, Д. 2001 more recent than the division northeast vs. west & south or Младенова, Д. 2001 the division north vs. south .

The source of the above text is Mladenova, D. 2010: 182; which also details other macro-divisions of the Bulgarian language. For a survey of the western and the eastern Bulgarian dialects see Стойков, С. 1993: 144–145, 96–100.

The Bulgarian macro-division relevant for the Transdanubian Corpus is the east-west division. Four western and three eastern Bulgarian dialects are represented in the Corpus. The abbreviations W for west, western and E for east, eastern are used whenever west Bulgarian phenomena are presented in opposition to their east Bulgarian correlates.

For an overview of the Bulgarian Transdanubian dialects see Vrabie, E. 1963; Стойков, С. 1993: 197–198; Младенов, М. С. 1993; Балкански, Т. 2010 – a review of the latter in Алексова, В. 2012. Their importance for Slavic dialectology and Bulgarian historical linguistic geography is discussed in Врабие, Э. 1963; Младенова, Д. 2001.

The Vidin-Lom dialect area is situated to the west of the Cibrica River. Its distinctive characteristics are: ❶ the future-tense particle че (employed side-by-side with ше); ❷ the imperfect-tense conjugation formed from a stem expanded with -ше- (БДА 1964-1981 4: 267, 273); ❸ the loss of word-final х (БДА 1964-1981 4: 95–96); ❹ the relative-clause marker къдѐ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 287); and the lexical items ❺ шѐйна ‘sleigh’ and ❻ ста̀н ‘loom’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 306; 371). See Map No. 4. This dialect is a division of the northwestern dialects described by Stojko Stojkov (Стойков, С. 1993: 146–147)

The Transdanubian Corpus contains recordings in Vidin-Lom dialect from Poiana Mare and Urzicuţa, in county Dolj. According to Stojan Romanski’s data from the beginning of the twentieth century, the speech varieties in Caraula, Mârza and Mărăcinele, county Dolj, were of the same type. However, there is no evidence that Bulgarian is currently spoken in these villages.

The Transdanubian Vidin-Lom dialect has phonetic, morphological and lexical peculiarities, including:

• Jers in a weak position, which initially existed in the root of words such as дно̀ ‘bottom’, тка̀лаf. ‘weaved’, have been lost.
• Monosyllabic masculine nouns form the plural with ending -еве, cf. дъждѐве ‘rains’, кошѐве ‘baskets’.
• The reflex of the Old Bulgarian nasal ѧ in жъ̀тва ‘harvest’ is ъ.
• Palatalized consonants т’, д’ are substituted with к’, г’, see бра̀к’а‘brothers’, гро̀зг’е ‘grapes’.
• Feminine nouns have the ending -а, in the singular, for instance коза̀ ‘goat’.
• The plural ending of masculine nouns is -е, for instance бѝволе ‘buffalos’, пешкѝре ‘towels’.
• Characteristic forms of the personal pronouns are йа̀ ‘I’, йа̀зе ‘I’, о̀н ‘he’, она̀ ‘she’, оно̀ ‘it’, онѝ ‘they’; н’ѝ ‘them’; но̀й ‘to her’, н’ѝм ‘to them’, clitics нги, мги, инги ‘to them’.
• Characteristic forms of the possessives are но̀йни pl. ‘her’, нѝнийъ m. definite ‘their’.
• In the present tense verbs of the first and the second conjugation have endings -м in first person singular and -ме in first person plural: вѝдим ‘I see’, вѝдиме ‘we see’.
• The imperfect is formed from a stem expanded with -ше-: йа̀ жъ̀неше ‘I was harvesting’, нѝе жъ̀нешеме ‘we were harvesting’.
• The past indefinite tense has started to oust the aorist.
• Future tense is formed with the particles че and ше.
• The dialect features the following lexical items (in alphabetical order): ба̀пка ‘hole, pit’, ба̀че ‘elder brother’, бѐли лу̀к ‘garlic’, бра̀йно ‘elder brother of the husband’, бревенѐци ‘traditional full-bottomed tight-legged trousers’, бу̀чка ‘butter churn’, вѝше ‘more’, гѝжа ‘grape vine plant’, дѝн’а ‘melon’, За̀говенки ‘Shrovetide’, зако̀паме pf. ‘we bury’, иско̀чим pf. ‘I go out’, кѝнем impf. ‘I tear up’, йа̀ко ‘strongly, hard’, йарѐм ‘yoke’, ка̀па ‘fur cap’, ко̀стеница ‘tortoise’, кукуру̀с ‘maize’, кул’а̀шка ‘corn cob without the kernels’, кулѐн ‘corn cob with the kernels’, лѐфка ‘post supporting the lateral board of an ox-drawn wagon’, лубенѝца ‘water-melon’, мана̀ра ‘axe’, ма̀нко ‘a little’, ма̀чка ‘cat’, на̀йдем pf. ‘I find’, о̀лби and о̀бги ‘phyllo dough’, опѝн’ак ‘traditional leather footwear’, печѐ се ‘is distilled (of brandy)’, пла̀тник and платнѝк ‘sack’, пло̀фка ‘duck’, по̀йдем pf. ‘I set off’, са̀кам impf. ‘I want’, точѝло ‘wheel’, ту̀рта ‘unleavened round bread’, утечѐ pf. ‘runs away’, чу̀вам impf. ‘I guard, I bring up’.
• The Transdanubian Vidin-Lom dialect is not completely uniform. For instance, the third-person feminine pronominal accusative clitic йъ (or е) is normal for the dialect but in Urzicuţa it competes with г’ъ (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 69). In the same village the negative future tense is formed not only with нѐма (да) but also with нѐште (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 74).
• For a detailed description of the phonetic, morpho-syntactic and lexical features of the Transdanubian Vidin-Lom dialect see Младенов, М. С. 1993: 60–83.

The Cibrica-Ogosta dialect is situated between the lower ranges of the Cibrica and Ogosta Rivers. It occupies a central position among the north-western Bulgarian dialects within the area of ❶ the future-tense markers ше and ште (БДА 1964-1981 4: 267) and to the west of the isoglosses ❷ W он // E той ‘he’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 239); ❸ W ку̀лен // E маму̀л ‘corn-cob together with the kernels’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 319); ❹ W опѝнци // E църву̀ли pl. ‘traditional leather footwear’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 351); ❺ W н’ѝм // E т’а̀м, на т’а̀х ‘to them’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 253); The isoglosses ❻ W брада̀ // E брадъ̀ ‘beard’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 141) and ❼ W бѐрем // E бѐра impf. ‘I collect, I gather’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 262) cut across the dialect area, its larger part featuring the west Bulgarian брада̀ and бѐрем. See Map No. 5. This dialect is a division of the north-western Bulgarian dialects, described by Stojko Stojkov (Стойков, С. 1993: 146–147) and was identified as a separate dialect formation by Maxim Mladenov (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 83–117).

Besides the Transdanubian villages represented in the corpus – Coteana and Brebeni-Sârbi, county Olt, Băileşti and Târnava, county Dolj, – the Cibrica-Ogosta dialect type also includes the speech variety in Piatra Olt, county Olt, where by 1970 the Bulgarian language was almost forgotten. Based on its phonetic features, Vladimir Zhobov assigns to this type the speech variety of Caravaneţi, county Teleorman, where the use of Bulgarian was on shaky ground in 1975, when M. Mladenov visited the village (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 38). The recording, made in the village at that time, is presented in section “Past”. According to data in Stojan Romanski’s archive, the same dialect type was present in the past in the villages Boanta, Perişor and Dâlga in county Dolj. No Bulgarian is spoken today in these villages.

The Transdanubian Cibrica-Ogosta dialect has its phonetic, morphological and lexical peculiarities:

• The weak jer vowel ъ in the L-participle истка̀ле pl. ‘weaved’ has been lost.
• The vowel ъ is the continuant of Old Bulgarian ь in жъ̀не ‘he/she harvests’, жъ̀лт ‘yellow’.
• The vowel ъ is the continuant of Old Bulgarian ѧ in жъ̀тва ‘harvest’.
• The dialect equivalent of the standard Bulgarian вътре ‘inside’ is унъ̀тре.
• Masculine nouns have the plural ending -е.
• Feminine nouns end in -а, either stressed (брада̀ ‘beard’, връба̀ ‘willow’) or unstressed (во̀да ‘water’ , гла̀ва ‘head’, ръ̀ка ‘hand’). The exception is the Coteana speech variety, in which feminine nouns end in -ъ.
• The first- and second-conjugation verbs most often have present-tense endings -м in the first person singular and -ме in the first person plural: дадѐм pf. ‘I give’, пасѐм impf. ‘I graze’, предѐм impf. ‘I spin’ – бѐреме impf. ‘we collect, we gather’, дадѐме pf. ‘we give’, пасѐме impf. ‘we graze’, предѐме impf. ‘we spin’. One may also encounter the first-person singular ending -а (much more often in Coteana and Brebeni-Sârbi than elsewhere) and very rarely the first-person plural ending -м.
• The future-tense particle is ште, ше. Parallel with it speakers in Băileşti use the future-tense particle че.
• The perfective L-participles from simple and some prefixed verbs have word-final stress: бега̀л m. ‘run’, вика̀л m. ‘called’, носѝл m. ‘carried’, работѝл m. ‘worked’.
• The past indefinite tense has been expanded at the expense of the aorist.
• Characteristic members of the system of personal pronouns are йа ‘I’, йазе ‘I’, о̀н ‘he’, она̀ ‘she’, оно̀ ‘it’, онѝ ‘they’, на̀зе ‘us’, ва̀зе ‘you (accusative)’, н’ѝ ‘them’, но̀й ‘to her’, нѐму ‘to her’, н’ѝм ‘to them’, clitics нги, гим ‘them’. In some aspects the Coteana and Brebeni-Sârbi pronominal systems come close to the easternmost Bjala-Slatina dialects.
• The dialect features the conjunction пошто̀ ‘after’ and the preposition преду̀ ‘in front of, before’.
• Characteristic lexical items are the following (in alphabetical order): ба̀йко ‘elder brother’; барда̀к ‘earthen jug’; бра̀йно ‘elder brother of the husband’; бреневѐци ‘traditional full-bottomed tight-legged trousers’; бъ̀рделки ‘part of the loom’; вал’а̀вица ‘fulling mill’; Водѝци ‘Epiphany’; гера̀н ‘well’; дѝн’а ‘melon’; жѐжък ‘melon’; За̀говенки ‘Shrovetide’; зако̀паме pf. ‘we bury’; иско̀чи pf. ‘he/she went out’; йерѐм ‘yoke’; ка̀па ‘fur cap’; ко̀стеница ‘tortoise’; кра̀тка f. ‘short’; кукул’а̀шка ‘corn cob without the kernels’; кукуру̀с ‘maize’; ку̀лен ‘corn cob with the kernels’; ламучъ̀к ‘addled egg’; лѐфка ‘post supporting the lateral board of an ox-drawn wagon’; лубенѝца ‘water-melon’; ма̀нко ‘a little’; ма̀чка ‘cat’; на̀йде pf. ‘he/she found’; о̀л’еви ‘homespun’; опѝнци pl. ‘traditional leather footwear’; пло̀фка ‘duck’; пушѝло ‘smoke’; пъ̀лтъник ‘vampire’; ру̀глица ‘wedding banner’; са̀кам impf. ‘I want’; сѝтен ‘fine’; ску̀там pf. ‘I hide’; точѝло ‘wheel’; ту̀рта ‘round bread’; убовѐнк’о ‘по-малък девер ‘younger brother of the husband’; у̀бофка ‘younger sister of the husband’; шѐйнер ‘sleigh runner’.

The documented dialect variations place the Băileşti speech variety in the western periphery of the Cibrica-Ogosta dialect and the Coteana and, to a lesser extent, the Brebeni-Sârbi variety to its eastern periphery.

For a detailed description of the phonetic, morpho-syntactic and lexical features of the Transdanubian Cibrica-Ogosta dialect see Младенов, М. С. 1993: 83–117.

The Bjala-Slatina dialect includes the territory north and south of the city Bjala Slatina between the Iskŭr and Skŭt Rivers. It is situated ❶ within the area of the third-person feminine accusative clitic г’ъ, ги (БДА 1964-1981 4: 243). Its western boundary coincides with the isogloss ❷ W гора̀ // E горъ̀ ‘forest’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 141), and the eastern one with the isogloss ❸ W йа̀ // E а̀с ‘I’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 235). First- and second-conjugation verbs have in the first person present tense ❹ ending -ъ, -а (БДА 1964-1981 4: 262) and ❺ stress on the stem in simple verbs such as прѐдъ impf. ‘I spin’, бѐръ impf. ‘I collect, gather’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 195). See Map No. 6. This dialect, which is a division of the north-western Bulgarian dialects described by Stojko Stojkov (Стойков, С. 1993: 146–147), was for the first time identified as a separate dialect formation by Maxim Mladenov (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 117–171).

The Bjala-Slatina dialect is the best represented western Bulgarian dialect in southern Romania. It is spoken in eleven localities from which there are recordings in the Corpus: Băleni-Sârbi, Puntea de Greci and the Matei Voievod neighbourhood in the city of Târgovişte in county Dâmboviţa; Licuriciu, Drăghineşti, Calomfireşti, Udeni and Spătărei in county Teleorman; Corlăteşti and Stoeneşti in county Olt; and Bila in county Giurgiu. The dialect is also represented in Comişani, county Dâmboviţa, where there are settlers from the nearby village Băleni-Sârbi. According to Stojan Romanski’s data the speech variety of Deveselu, county Olt, belonged to the same type.

The Transdanubian Bjala-Slatina dialect shares a number of peculiarities with the homeland Bjala-Slatina dialect, such as the use of the regular plural after numerals (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 125). It also exhibits features that must have characterized the homeland Bjala-Slatina dialect in the past. Thus the auxiliary verb has the aorist forms бѝ, бӣ̀ме, бѝше, which have not been documented in this meaning in the homeland north-western dialects (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 137–138). The Transdanubian Bjala-Slatina inclusive pronouns are сѝте, сѝчки and for persons сѝнца. The first form is not used in the contemporary homeland Bjala-Slatina dialect (БДА 1964-1981 4: 392). Its presence in the Transdanubian Bjala-Slatina dialect can be explained either as a contribution of Bulgarian settlers who came to southern Romania from territories further to the southwest from Bjala Slatina or, more probably, as a sign that the form сѝте had in the period prior to the migrations to Romania a broader area of distribution than it has now (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 132–133).

Speakers of the Transdanubian Вjala-Slatina dialect use a number of western Bulgarian lexical items but also some eastern Bulgarian ones (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 165–166). Indicative of the intermediary position of the Bjala-Slatina dialect between east and west is the presence of both members of the lexical pairs W кукуру̀с and E маму̀ле‘maize’ (see Map No. 6), W мана̀ра and E наџа̀к ‘axe’, W лубенѝца and E дѝн’а ‘water-melon’, W ста̀н and E дузѐн ‘loom’, W шѐйнар and E пла̀с ‘sleigh runner’, W бро̀а impf. and E чѐтъ impf ‘I count’, W сѝтни pl. and E дрѐбни pl. ‘fine’. Evidence for the localization wuth the dialect can be seen in the presence of lexical items of a restricted distribution between the Iskŭr and Ogosta Rivers: земнѝк ‘cattle shed’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 353), кл’унъ̀ ‘beak’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 337), бел’ъ̀к ‘egg white’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 291), зайдѐва ‘sets, goes down (of the sun)’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 387).

The Transdanubian Bjala-Slatina dialect is not completely uniform. For instance, neuter nouns have different definite forms in the plural depending on the source indefinite form (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 128–129). When the plural ending is -ета there is an isogloss dividing the conservative type въжѐтата ‘the ropes’, дървѐтата ‘the trees’ (Băleni-Sârbi, Târgovişte, Comişani, Drăghineşti, Puntea de Greci, Stoeneşti and Udeni) from the innovative types дървѐата ‘the trees’, ку̀чеата ‘the dogs’ (Licuriciu, Calomfireşti and Bila), монча̀ата ‘the boys’, пѝл’аата ‘the chickens’ (Corlăteşti). See Map No. 6.

We can assign the Udeni speech variety to the western periphery of the Bjala-Slatina dialect (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 125, 131, 134, 135), if we take into account peculiarities like the ending -а̀ of feminine nouns that corresponds to otherwise predominant Transdanubian Bjala-Slatina ending -ъ̀; the third-person plural personal pronoun doublets тѝе and онѝ ‘they’; the first-person singular ending -м and the first-person plural ending -ме in the present tense of simple verbs of the first and the second conjugation.

The preposition низ ‘from; around; through’ is only employed in the speech varieties of Licuriciu and Stoeneşti and this feature places them in the westernmost part of the Bjala-Slatina dialect (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 157–158).

The Bjala-Slatina dialect marker of definiteness of nouns in the plural is -те, but in Calomfireşti and Licuriciu the endings -те and -ти are in complementary distribution depending on the final vowel in the plural (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 118–119). The definite form of adjectives is -те everywhere but in Calomfireşti and Spătărei where the ending is -ти. (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 129). In the Drăghineşti and Spătărei speech varieties endings -е and -и compete as markers of the plural of multisyllable nouns (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 124–125).

In the Bjala-Slatina dialect, simple first- and second-conjugation verbs exhibit initial stress: бѐраimpf. ‘I collect, I gather’, плѐта impf. ‘I knit’, вѝда pf. ‘I see’, дѝра impf. ‘I search’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 185). Only the Spătărei and the Bila speech varieties form an exception as in them one may encounter also forms like метъ̀ impf. ‘I sweep’, оротъ̀ impf. ‘I talk’. This is a sign that these varieties are situated at the eastern periphery of the Bjala-Slatina dialect (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 134). The stress in prefixed first- and second-conjugation verbs falls as a rule on the prefix: ѝзмийа pf. ‘I wash’, до̀неса pf. ‘I bring’ with the exception of the varieties at the extreme west and the extreme east: Udeni (for instance напо̀им), pf. ‘I water’), Spătărei and Bila (for instance зако̀лъ pf. ‘I butcher’, опъ̀рлъ pf. ‘I singe’) (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 135). See Map No. 6.

For a detailed description of the phonetic, morpho-syntactic and lexical features of the Transdanubian Bjala-Slatina dialect see Стойков, С. 1970; Младенов, М. С. 1993: 117–171.

The Iskŭr-Vit dialect area lies to the northwest of the city of Pleven and immediately to the west of the jat’ isogloss, between the Iskŭr and Vit Rivers. This is the region of the so-called About them see Трифонов, Ю. 1929 and Map No. 7. Maraš villages near Pleven. Linguistic characteristics on different levels distinguish the Iskŭr-Vit dialect from its western neighbour, the Bjala-Slatina dialect. Here we mention the following morphological, accentual and lexical features many of which are considered eastern Bulgarian.

Even so the Iskŭr-Vit dialect preserves its essentially western Bulgarian character as visible from Western linguistic peculiarities like the following. Continuant of Old Bulgarian ѣ is the vowel е. The consonant system is of the western Bulgarian type with a limited inventory and distribution of the palatalized consonants (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 174). The feminine third-person personal pronoun in the dative is но̀й (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 180). No words may be inserted between the negation не and the verb and не may assume sentence-initial position (БДА 1964-1981 4: 288; Младенов, М. С. 1993: 190). Notable in the lexicon are бел’ъ̀к ‘egg white’, ка̀мик ‘stone’, подно̀жи ‘treadles’, опънџа̀к ‘hooded cloak’, бу̀чка ‘butter churn’, ба̀йко and ба̀е ‘elder brother’, бра̀йно ‘elder brother of the husband’, За̀говенки ‘Shrovetide’, закопа̀вът impf. ‘they bury’, мѝгар ‘really, indeed, does he/she/it’, ну̀сере ‘nostrils’, ода̀вно ‘long ago’ and стро̀ши pf. ‘he/she broke’ (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 191).

This dialect is a division of the north-western dialects described by Stojko Stojkov (Стойков, С. 1993: 146–147) and was identified as a separate dialect formation by Maxim Mladenov (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 171–193).

In the Transdanubian space the Iskŭr-Vit dialect is present in Vlădila, county Olt, Crângeni and Atârnaţi, county Teleorman. Recordings made in these villages are included in the Corpus. Based on the western Bulgarian continuant of Old Bulgarian ѣ and lexical evidence, Stojan Romanski classified the speech varieties he encountered in Izbiceni, Vădăstriţa, Vădastra and Grădinile, county Olt as the same dialect type in 1906.

The most significant of the Transdanubian Iskŭr-Vit phonetic, accentual, morphological and lexical features are the change т’, д’ ˃ к’, г’; the L-participles дошо̀л m. ‘come’, отишо̀л m. ‘gone’; the word-final stress дъскѝ ‘boards’, офцѐ pl. ‘sheep’, главъ̀ ‘head’, ръкъ̀ ‘hand’; the future tense particles ште and же; the definite plurals of neuter nouns of the type пѝлеата ‘the chickens’; and the lexical items четъ̀ impf. ‘I count’, За̀говенки ‘Shrovetide’, умо̀т ‘yoke’, ѝштем impf. ‘we want’, дѝн’а ‘water-melon’, то̀к ‘threshing floor’.

The following eleven linguistic phenomena characterizing the Iskŭr-Vit dialect type on both sides of the Danube River are presented on Map No. 7: ❶ ѣ > е: бѐла f. ‘white’; word-final stress in ❷ бръшно̀ ‘flour’ and ❸ метъ̀ impf. ‘I sweep’, пасъ̀ impf. ‘I graze’, предъ̀ impf. ‘I spin’; ❹ personal pronoun а̀с ’I’; ❺ demonstrative pronouns тѐа ’these’, онѐа ’those’; ❻ count form два̀ во̀ла ’two oxen’; lexical items ❼ дузѐн ‘loom’ and ❽ маму̀ле ‘maize’. This localization is also confirmed by the presence of the following typical phenomena which are however documented each only in two of the three Transdanubian Iskŭr-Vit localities included into the Corpus: word-final stress in ❾ огъ̀н ’fire’ in Atârnaţi and Vlădila; and ❿ платно̀ ’cloth’ in Vlădila and Crângeni and lexical item бел’ъ̀к ‘egg white’ in Crângeni and Vlădila.

Among the Transdanubian Iskŭr-Vit linguistic phenomena without counterparts in the homeland Iskŭr-Vit dialect is the competition of the inclusive pronoun сѝнца expected according to the Bulgarian Dialect Atlas with сѝте, сѐте, съ̀те (БДА 1964-1981 4: 392; Младенов, М. С. 1993: 181), the juxtaposition of present-tense first-person singular endings -ъ / -а in verbs of the first and the second conjugation not only with the first-person plural ending -м but also with -ме: предъ̀ impf. ‘I spin’, вѝда pf. ‘I see’, ста̀нем pf. ‘we get up’, вѝдим pf. ‘we see’, бѝеме impf. ‘we beat’, го̀твиме impf. ‘we cook’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 264; Младенов, М. С. 1993: 183). The unexpected linguistic features have different explanations: some are due to independent Transdanubian evolution, others are archaisms lost in the homeland.

The Transdanubian Iskŭr-Vit is not completely uniform. For instance as opposed to other speech varieties, the Atârnaţi variety features the plural ending -и. As a rule, multisyllable nouns have the plural ending -е (бойа̀ре ‘masters, landowners’, мо̀ркове ‘carrots’) but in Atârnaţi speakers prefer -и (бойа̀ри ‘masters, landowners’, мо̀ркови ‘carrots’). The definite article in the plural is usually -те but in Atârnaţi the definite articles -те and -ти appear in complementary distribution depending on the plural ending: – бъ̀лгарити ‘the Bulgarians’, кузѝти ‘the goats’ but ръцѐте‘the hands’. Everywhere but in Atârnaţi L-participles normally form the plural with the ending -е. In Atârnaţi the regular ending is -и, see върша̀ли ‘threshed’, пра̀вили ‘made’ (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 177, 179, 186). See also the distribution of the accusative third-person pronominal clitics йъ and г’ъ ‘her’ shown on Map No. 7 (Младенов, М. С. 1993: map 8 on p. 452).

For a detailed description of the phonetic, morpho-syntactic and lexical features of the Transdanubian Iskŭr-Vit dialect see Младенов, М. С. 1993: 171–193.

The Nikopol dialect is the westernmost Eastern Bulgarian dialect, located along Osŭm River between the cities of Nikopol and Pleven eastwards of the lower reaches of Vit River. The entire Nikopol dialect area is chracterized by the following phenomena: ❶ the East Bulgarian descendant of Old Bulgarian ѣ >, cf. б’а̀ла f. ‘white’; ❷ the definite article -ъ of masculine nouns (брегъ̀ ‘the shore’); ❸ the plural ending -и of multi-syllable masculine nouns, see градина̀ри ‘gardeners; vegetable growers’; the reduced word-final е (in words like ❹ зѐли ‘cabbage’, мага̀ри ‘donkey’ or ❺ ѝми ‘name’, врѐми ‘time’); and ❻ the transition м ˃ н in мунчѐ ‘boy’. Other salient characteristics of the dialect are дузѐн ‘loom’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 306), the accusative third-person feminine clitic га, г’ъ ‘her’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 243), the neuter form ко̀смо ‘hair’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 346), the verb за̀йде pf. ‘it set (of the sun)’ (БДА 1964-1981 4: 387). Because of its central position on the Bulgarian dialect map, the Nikopol dialect is the battlefield of contradictory tendences, which leads to the co-existence of alternative forms of some linguistic phenomena. The isoglosses crisscrossing the Nikopol dialect area may serve as the basis for the identification of subdivisions of the dialect.

The Nikopol dialect is distinguished from its western neighbour by a series of linguistic phenomena: phonetic, accentual, morphologic and lexical.

To the east is the Moesian dialect from which the Nikopol dialect also differs by a number of linguistic features of which we will mention several.

The linguistic makeup of the Nikopol dialect includes western Bulgarian features that reach as far east as the Nikopol dialect area with a significant number of eastern Bulgarian features for which this is the westernmost periphery of their distribution. This dialect is a division of the eastern Bulgarian Balkan dialects, described by Stojko Stojkov (Стойков, С. 1993: 107–120) and was identified as a separate dialect formation by Maxim Mladenov (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 193–238).

The Nikopol dialect is present in three Transdanubian villages from which there are recordings in the Corpus: Izvoarele, county Teleorman, Jilava and Măgurele, county Ilfov. A dialect of the same type was also present in Siliştoara, county Olt, where in 1970 Bulgarian had almost completely disappeared. According to data from Stojan Romanski’s archive this dialect was also spoken in the past in the city of Buzău and in the villages Giuleşti, Domneşti and Ciorogârla, county Ilfov.

The Transdanubian Nikopol dialect has phonetic, accentual, morphologic and lexical peculiarities that connect it with the homeland Nikopol dialect, however it also has features whose relation to the linguistic situation to the south of the Danube needs further investigation. Like the homeland Nikopol dialect, it is not completely uniform. For instance, the isogloss that divides the forms бразда and бразна ‘furrow’ in the homeland, also divides the Transdanubian villages: W бръздъ̀ in Izvoarele and Siliştoara but E бръзнъ̀ in Jilava and Măgurele (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 194). Typical of the Izvoarele speech variety is the E adverb тъ̀й ‘so’ but in Jilava and Măgurele speakers use W тъка̀ ‘so’ (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 238). The E term кръка̀ ‘treadles’ in Siliştoara has as a counterpart in Izvoarele the W term по̀днужи ‘treadles’ (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 236–237). Speakers have different terms for ‘duck’: W па̀ткъ in Siliştoara and E йурдѐчкъ in Izvoarele (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 236). The feminine accusative third-person personal pronouns нѐг’ъ, г’ъ are only encountered in Izvoarele in competition with нѐе, нѐйе, йъ, а which are the regular pronouns elsewhere in the Transdanubian Nikopol dialect (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 207). Prepositions W по and E слъд, слът compete in Izvoarele and Jilava to denote subsequence in time and space; these meanings are normally expressed in the Transdanubian Nikopol dialect by the preposition слъд, слът (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 222–223). Map No. 8 shows the distribution of the following four variables: terms for ‘loom’ – дузѐн and/or ста̀н; word-final м ˃ н, for instance сън ‘(I) am’; and lexical items мънѝста ‘beads’ and ушо̀ ‘ear’.

The use of the future-tense particles жъ and шъ in the Transdanubian Nikopol dialect is of interest for Bulgarian historical dialectology because it shows how in certain phonetic positions the particle жъ developped from шъ (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 215).

For a detailed description of the phonetic, morpho-syntactic and lexical features of the Transdanubian Nikopol dialect see Младенов, М. С. 1993: 193–238.

The term ‘Moesian dialect’ is used here to denote the subdivision of the northeastern Moesian dialects (Стойков, С. 1993: 101–105), situated in the triangle formed by the mouth of Jantra River and the cities of Razgrad and Silistra. The most important distinctive feature of the Moesian dialect is ❶ the masculine definite article -о (БДА 1964-1981 2: 169–172). Other characteristics are: ❷ the term гъ̀лъби ‘maize’ (БДА 1964-1981 2: 230), the transitions ❸ а ˃ е after a post-alveolar or a palatal consonant as in жѐби ‘frogs’, йѐрки ‘pullets’ (БДА 1964-1981, 2: 28) and ❹ м ˃ н in мунчѐ ‘boy’ (БДА 1964-1981 2: 100), ❺ the loss of unstressed и, у in forms like червѐнте pl. ‘the red’, вѝнту ‘the wine’ (БДА 1964-1981, 2: 168), ❻ the preposition у ‘in’ (БДА 1964-1981, 2: 203), ❼ the personal pronoun тѝй ‘they’ (БДА 1964-1981, 2: 182) and ❽ the lexical item чил’а̀к ‘person’ (БДА 2, к. 101). The Moesian dialect area is crisscrossed by a number of isoglosses that subdivide it: ❾ the isogloss between future-tense particles же and ше (БДА 1964-1981 2: 191), as well as the omission of the word-initial palatal approximant in а̀бълка ‘apple’ versus its presence in йа̀бълка ‘apple’ (БДА 1964-1981 2: 84), plurals of polysyllabic masculine nouns градина̀ре 'gardeners; vegetable growers' as opposed to градина̀ри 'gardeners; vegetable growers'(БДА 1964-1981 2: 163).

The Moesian dialect is the best represented Bulgarian dialect in southern Romania. In the Corpus there are recordings from twelve Transdanubian Moesian villages: Afumaţi and Chiajna, county Ilfov, Iepureşti, Hotarele, Vărăşti, Valea Dragului and Miloşeşti, county Giurgiu, Plătăreşti, Chiseletu, Mânăstirea, Ciocăneşti and Ceacu, county Călăraşi. The speech variety of Brăneşti (county Ilfov), well known from Gheorghe Bolocan’s publications, is of the same type. According to data from Stojan Romanski’s archive the same dialect was also spoken in the past in the villages Dudu, Dudeşti, Dragomireşti, Roşu, Herăşti and Pârlita, county Ilfov.

Among the features characteristic of the Transdanubian Moesian dialect are the affricates џ and ѕ, and the glide ў. The fricatives в and х have disappeared from some positions. The distribution of palatalized consonants has expanded (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 247–256). The definite article for masculine nouns is -о, -у, for instance гръдо̀ ‘the city’, килѐру ‘the pantry’, сва̀ту ‘the in-law’, but the definite article -ъ is sporadically encountered in Chiajna, Mânăstirea, Chiseletu, Afumaţi, Vărăşti and Ceacu. As in the homeland, the nominative forms of the third-person pronoun are used attributively as demonstratives, for instance видѐ мъ то̀й чил’а̀к ‘this man saw me’ (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 268–269). The prepositions въс (въз) ‘at, by, close to’, зърът ‘for, to’, пудер ‘after’ are in use (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 284–285, 285–286, 288–289, 292). Specific to the dialect are the following lexical items (in alphabetical order):бръснѝч ‘razor’, бу̀л’ъ ‘uncle’s wife’, вѐште ‘more, still, yet’, га̀гу ‘aunt’s husband’, га̀т ‘poultry’, гу̀йну and о̀тък ‘threshing floor’, гу̀ждъм impf. ‘I put’, гъ̀лъби ‘maize’, женѝхли ‘matchmakers’, жѐркъ ‘water mill’, џу̀къ ‘lip’, згуденѝк ‘fiancé’, згуденѝцъ ‘fiancée’, зимнѝк and л’а̀ў ‘cattle shed’, зо̀ре ‘‘tomorrow’, зо̀рнъ ‘morning’, зъгъ̀въм impf. ‘I wrap up’, зъра̀в’ъм impf. ‘I bury’, зъсѐннъ pf. ‘set (of the sun)’ зъту̀л’ъм ‘I plug up’, ѝди impf. ‘it rains; it snows’, ѝштъ impf. ‘I want’, кѝт ‘hoar-frost’, коп̀ънчи ‘chicken leg’, ко̀тел ‘cauldron’, кра̀к ‘spoke’, кра̀л ‘wattle, acacia’, ло̀шъву ‘badly, poorly’, л’у̀цки ‘somebody else’s, another’s’, мекѝнъ ‘fine chaff’, мътѝлкъ ‘butter churn’, не ра̀чъ impf. ‘I don’t want’, нѝне ‘now’, о̀пъс ‘belt’, па̀ткъ ‘goose’, пѝленцъ ‘stuffed cabbage or vine leaves’, по̀пеш ‘melon’, про̀ткъ ‘wicket in a fence’, пупъ̀рџъм impf. ‘I swear’, пъ̀стри pl. ‘motley’, сѝнце ‘beads’, ско̀мен ‘chair’, стъ̀пъ ‘mortar’, твъ̀рде ‘a lot; quite’, тѐйку ‘dad’, тъ̀ргъм impf. ‘I pluck out’, уба̀ждъм impf. ‘I tell’, умо̀т ‘yoke’, ура̀лцъ ‘wooden plough’, фѐрџа ‘hooded cloak’, фу̀л’ук ‘snail’, ча̀пл’ъ ‘stork’, чѐр ‘black’, четъ̀ impf. ‘I count’ (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 311).

The Transdanubian Moesian dialect is not completely uniform. The Chiajna speech variety differs from the rest by certain peculiarities that connect it to dialects around Karnobat and Sliven, south of the Balkan Mountains. Among them are the stressed ending -а̀ of feminine nouns (купа̀ ‘(hay)stack’, мъгла̀ ‘fog’, руса̀ ‘dew’), definite article -та̀ instead of -тъ̀, cf. солтъ̀ ‘the salt’, вечертъ̀ ‘the evening’, and the stressed present-tense first-person ending -а̀ of verbs of the first and the second conjugation (плита̀ impf. ‘I knit’, спа̀ impf. ‘I sleep’, чита̀ impf. ‘I read’) which contrast with the endings typical of the Transdanubian Moesian dialect as a whole: купъ̀ ‘(hay)stack’, иглъ̀ ‘needle’, лузъ̀ ‘vine’ and тъкъ̀ impf. ‘I weave’, читъ̀ impf. ‘I read’, вър’ъ̀ impf. ‘I walk’, respectively (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 258–259, 274; see also Map No. 9 above). The Chiajna speech variety shares these featrures with the variety spoken in Štrŭklevo, Ruse Region, which is the locality from which the ancestors of Chiajna residents set off for their Transdanubian destination. It is probable that along with the indigenous Moesian population in Štrŭklevo there are also settlers from the regions of Karnobat and/or Sliven (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 240). The Plătăreşti speech variety also gives reason to believe that the population there stemmed partly from the Moesian area and partly from the environs of Karnobat and/or Sliven (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 246, 251).

Isoglosses crisscrossing the homeland Moesian dialect make it possible to determine that certain Transdanubian Moesian villages were in closer relations to the Razgrad and Ruse area and others to the Silistra and Tutrakan area, for an analysis see Младенова, Д. 2013.

For a detailed description of the phonetic, morpho-syntactic and lexical features of the Transdanubian Moesian dialect see Bolocan, G. 1958; Bolocan, G. 1960; Bolocan, G. 1969; Болокан, Г. 1968; Iuffu, Z. 1963; Димчев, К. 1968; Димчев, К. 1969; Димчев, К. 1969; Димчев, К. 1974; Младенов, М. С. 1993: 238–317.

The Pavlikjani dialect is an eastern Bulgarian Rhodope dialect (Стойков, С. 1993: 137–139). This is the dialect of Bulgarian Catholics. It is located in the Plovdiv Region in southern Bulgaria and in the Svištov Region in northern Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Banat dialect also belongs to this group (Стойков, С. 1967; Стойков, С. 1968; Стойков, С. 1993: 192–196).

The speech varieties of two localities – Popeşti-Leordeni and Cioplea, county Ilfov, today within Bucharest city limits – belong to the Transdanubian Pavlikjani dialect. Recordings from both of them are included in the Corpus.

The Transdanubian Pavlikjani dialect displays the most typical features of a Pavlikjani dialect in general but it also has properties that correlate in a complex way with the dialects in Plovdiv Region, Svištov Region and Banat. Thus дузѝн, дузѝн’ ‘loom’ connects the Transdanubian dialect with the northern Bulgarian Pavlikjani dialect (see БДА 1964-1981 2: 222), нѝштелныцы ‘heddles’ – with the southern Bulgarian Pavlikjani dialect (see БДА 1964-1981 3: 240) and бъ̀руа ‘eyebrow’ – with the Banat dialect (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 357). Among the linguistic phenomena that characterize the Transdanubian Pavlikjani dialect is the vowel ы, cf. жены̀ ‘women’, куры̀ту ‘trough, tub’ (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 319–320). The vowel е transforms into и both in a stressed and an unstressed position, for example грѝбен’ ‘comb’, сърцѝ ‘heart’, жина̀ ‘woman’, and unstressed е, и and о may be dropped in the middle of words and in word-final position as in птѝл ‘rooster’, бѐш ‘he/she/it was’, нъпра̀влу n. ‘done’, кма̀рете ‘the mosquitoes’ (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 321–323). The fricative х is absent and the fricative в is subject to transformations (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 326–328). Among the peculiarities of the pronominal system are the accusative first-person plural and third-person neuter singular clitics му ‘us’ and и ‘it‘ (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 337). The reflexive pronouns свой, си are not employed (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 340). Because of phonetic changes some of the first-conjugation verbs have switched to second conjugation (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 343). The future tense is formed with the particle зъ (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 343–344). Worth noticing are the prepositions въс ‘at, by’, поды̀р ‘after’ and сълът ‘after’ and the replacement of във and за by у and зърът, respectively (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 352). Prominent lexical features that connect the Transdanubian Pavlikjani dialect with both the northern and the southern Pavlikjani homeland dialects are: армѐйа ‘sauerkraut’ (БДА 1964-1981 2: 228; 3: 246), џу̀ка ‘lip’ (БДА 1964-1981 2: 247; 3: 275), зумнѝк’, зымны̀к ‘cattle shed’ (БДА 1964-1981 2: 254; 3: 284), кро̀мпил ‘potatoes’ (БДА 1964-1981 2: 233; 3: 253), кучѐне ‘maize’ (БДА 1964-1981 2: 230; 3: 250), убра̀с ‘face, cheek’ (БДА 1964-1981 2: 248; 3: 274), пу̀йъс, по̀ес ‘rainbow’ (БДА 1964-1981 2: 279; 3: 299), летѝ ‘it rains; in snows’ (БДА 1964-1981 2: 285; 3: 305).

The Transdanubian Pavlikjani dialect is not altogether uniform. For example, the transformation of stressed о into у (ду̀лу ‘down’, ну̀жицъ ‘scissors’) characterizes only the Popeşti-Leordeni speech variety (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 321).Descendants of Old Bulgarian ѧ in Cioplea are е, ъ and а, cf. езѝк ‘tongue’, глъ̀д’ем impf. ‘I look’, кл’а̀твъ ‘oath’, and in Popeşti-Leordeni – е or ъ, cf. мѐк m. ‘soft’, тъ̀шкъ f. ‘pregnant’ (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 325–326). The affricate ѕ is of a limited distribution and is encountered only in Popeşti-Leordeni (Младенов, М. С. 1993: 329).

For a detailed description of the phonetic, morpho-syntactic and lexical features of the Transdanubian Pavlikjani dialect see Петрович, Е., Е. Врабие 1963; Петрович, Е., Е. Врабие 1965; Гуцу, О. 1965; Гуцу, О. 1966; Гуцу, О. 1968; Младенов, М. С. 1993: 317–363.