ANEXO II.Contenido mínimo del libro de registro de explotación
ANEJO 4: INSTALACIONES DE ALIMENTACIÓN
3. DISTRIBUCIÓN DE LA COMIDA
7.4.1 General features of clause linking
The principal feature of clause-linking devices in Romani is the predominance of finiteness. Converbs are employed only marginally. The morphological in-ventory of genuine converbal constructions is essentially limited to the two gerunds; the ‘new infinitive’ is a case of recent loss of concord agreement on what was originally a finite form (see section 6.7). Moreover, the pro-ductive use of gerunds is limited to a number of dialects. Paratactic chain-ing is achieved almost entirely by means of clause-initial conjunctions, which are often borrowed; some borrowed conjunctions follow the first constituent (Turkish da, Hungarian iˇs). Marginally, serialisation appears, involving mainly verbs of motion:
(35) vi mure papos avile line anda o kher
alo my.obl grandfather.obl came.3pl took.3pl from art house (Lovari; Matras 1994a: 117)
‘they also came and took my grandfather from the house’
There is some evidence that serialisation is employed in dialects in contact with Turkish, as a means of imitating Turkish converbal constructions (e.g. Turkish alıp g¨ot¨urd¨um ‘I took it and brought it’):
(36) ljem andem les khere (Agia Varvara Vlax; Igla 1996: 173) took.1sg brought.1sg him home
‘I took (it) and brought it home’
7.4.2 Relative clauses
On the one hand, Romani follows the European type of relative clause. No expression is used exclusively as a relativiser, and no trace is found of the Indo-Aryan relativiser in y-/j-. Rather, relativisers (and the embedding conjunctions) are recruited from the inventory of interrogatives. On the other hand, Romani
has obligatory resumptive pronouns when the head noun assumes a role other than the subject role within the relative clause. This is a relatively stable feature of Romani and one that is not usually compromised as a result of contact. The origins of the obligatory resumptive pronoun in Romani could be in convergence with Iranian, or, more likely if one considers the rather young grammaticalisa-tion of resumptive pronouns, with Greek (or other Balkan languages).
Resumptive pronouns typically accompany relativisers that are not inflected for case. The most common relativiser in Romani is kaj, from kaj ‘where’. The etymology corresponds to that of the general relativisers of several Balkan lan-guages, most notably Greek. Most Romani dialects also employ so/hoj ‘what’, which usually follows inanimates, generic expressions, or determiners:
(37) sas kothe bajora so ˇci ˇc´alonas ma was there things rel neg appeal.3pl.rem me (Lovari; Matras 1994a: 203)
‘there were things there that I didn’t like’
(38) saro so pesa lija kherestyr sys maro all rel refl.instr took.3sg home.abl was bread (Polska Roma; Matras 1999b: 17)
‘all he took with him from home was bread’
(39) ham andar odola so adaj sam, o dˇzuvla, me som but from those rel here are.1pl art women, I am.1sg i lek phuraneder (Roman; Wogg and Halwachs1998: 57) art super old.comp
‘but from among those who are here, the women, I am the eldest’
There are two relativisers which do carry inflection: savo ‘which’, which agrees in gender and number with its head also in the nominative form, and kon
‘who’. Both inflect for case (savo also for gender/number) and are used mainly with animate heads, and usually as a form of disambiguating head nouns. They are particularly common in possessive constructions, which occupy the lowest position on the noun accessibility hierarchy (Keenan and Comrie 1977) and so are most likely in universal terms to show case marking:
(40) o gaˇzo kasko si kado sa (Lovari; Matras 1994a: 35) art man rel.gen is this all
‘the man to whom all this belongs’
(41) panˇc dˇzene andi cili sidlung, saven khera sin upre five persons in whole settlement rel.obl houses is up pumengere thana (Roman; Wogg and Halwachs 1998: 58) ref.gen.pl places
‘five persons in the whole estate, who had houses on their lots’
The use of resumptive pronouns is conditioned by hierarchies of animacy and thematic role, and more generally by the predictability of the semantic case
role of the particular head noun in the relative clause (cf. Matras 1994a: 206–
10). Dendropotamos Vlax for example requires a resumptive pronoun with the animate benefactive, but it is optional with the animate direct object, although the formal case marking of both roles is identical (oblique):
(42) kaa si o ˇchaoro kaj dijem les iraki pares this is art boy rel gave.1sg him yesterday money
‘this is the boy to whom I gave money yesterday’
(43) o rom kaj dikhlem (les) iraki avilas kaj mo ´cher art man rel saw.1sg him.obl yesterday came.3sg to my house
‘the man whom I saw yesterday came to my house’
According to Holzinger (1993: 173–8), the resumptive pronoun in Sinti is optional with animate head nouns in both direct object and benefactive roles.
Most locative head nouns appear to be treated as non-ambiguous in regard to their case roles in the relative clause, and tend not to show a resumptive pronoun:
(44) o foro, kaj dˇziv¯e (Sinti; Holzinger 1993: 174) art town rel live.2sg
‘the town in which you live’
With inanimate heads in object roles, however, there is variation, depending on the extent to which the head and the verb allow a predictable association with particular thematic roles:
(45) koi ˇcuri kaj ˇcindom i matrele (Sinti; Holzinger 1993: 174) this knife rel cut.1sg art potatoes
‘the knife with which I cut the potatoes’
(46) e buˇcja so keras (Lovari) art things rel do.1pl
‘the things we do’
(47) jek torba kaj ikeravas la katro dumo indef bag rel carry.1sg.rem it from.art back (Bugurdˇzi; Boretzky 1993a: 101)
‘a bag which I carried on my back’
Cleft constructions rely on the same devices as relative clauses, employing the relativiser in exposed position:
(48) kon lija lija, kon na, na who took.3sg took.3sg who neg neg (Roman; Wogg and Halwachs 1998: 58)
‘whoever took, took, whoever did not, did not’
Much like relative clauses, embeddings are constituents of the complex sen-tence. They are introduced by any one of a range of semantically specified interrogatives:
(49) na dˇzanla so te vakerel mange neg know.3sg.rem what comp say.3sg me.dat (Bugurdˇzi; Boretzky 1993a: 101)
‘she didn’t know what to say to me’
(50) me na dˇzanav, sar buˇconahi I neg know.1sg how call.3pl.rem (Roman; Wogg and Halwachs 1998: 55)
‘I don’t know what [how] they were called’
7.4.3 Complementation and purpose clauses
Perhaps the most obvious morphosyntactic Balkanism that characterises Romani as a whole, not just its Balkan dialects, is the dichotomy in the representation of integrated /subordinated events as factual or real vs. non-factual or non-real. In the absence of an infinitive in modal constructions, the contrast is most clearly maintained in ‘classic’ complement constructions. Complements of epistemic verbs, which represent events that are potentially independent and real, are introduced by what might be called theKAJ-type complementiser:
(51) mislizla meˇcka kaj si (Bugurdˇzi; Boretzky 1993a: 99) think.3sg bear comp is
‘he thinks that it’s a bear’
(52) jon phenen, kaj o rom romedinevela la they say.3pl comp art man marry.3sg.fut her (Sinti; Holzinger 1993: 158)
‘they say, that the man will marry her’
(53) dikhˇca kaj lakro pˇsal ˇchija bara saw.3sg comp her brother threw.3sg stones (Polska Roma; Matras 1999b: 18)
‘she saw that her brother threw stones’
The form kaj (< ‘where’) represents the conservative, inherited form of the
KAJ-complementiser. The choice of the interrogative/conjunction ‘where’, which also serves as a relativiser, allows the alignment of epistemic comple-ments with other factual extensions to the main proposition. The inherited conjunction is replaced by borrowings in three main zones (see also section 8.2.2). In Vlax, it is replaced entirely by kə /ke from Romanian, which is its functional equivalent. In the Arli and Southern Vlax varieties of Greece it is replaced by Greek oti, again a functional equivalent. This development appears to be of recent date, also affecting varieties such as Dendropota-mos and Agia Varvara Vlax spoken by immigrant communities. It is likely then that the KAJ-type complementiser in these varieties underwent succes-sive replacement, from *kaj to *k e /ke to oti. Finally, in the Central dialects, Hungarian-derived hod/hodˇz /hod’ /hot /hoj is gaining ground. In some dialects,
such as Roman, it still co-exists with kaj; in Hungarian Lovari it co-exists with ke.
Modal complements are introduced by te (in some varieties ti):
(54) job kamel te dˇsalo khere (Sinti; Holzinger 1993: 137) he want.3sg comp go.3sg.m home
‘he wants to go home’
(55) jame moginas dava te zumavel (Polska Roma; Matras 1999b: 18) we can.1pl this comp try.3sg
‘we can try this’
(56) le hi jek parno gra te bikinel (Roman; Halwachs 1998: 196) him is indef white horse comp sell.3sg
‘he has a white horse to sell’
(57) akana mangela o Gudis ti ˇcumidel la now want.3sg art G. comp kiss.3sg.subj her (Sepeˇci; Cech and Heinschink 1999: 187)
‘now Gudis wants to kiss her’
The split corresponds to the two sets of complementisers in other Balkan lan-guages (Romanian c˘a vs. s˘a; Greek oti vs. na, etc.). The etymology of te is unclear. It is not a cognate of Domari ta ‘in order to’, which is borrowed from Arabic. There are however other languages in the Near East that employ ta in purpose clauses, e.g. Kurdish and Neo-Aramaic, where it appears to originate in the Iranian preposition t¯a ‘until’. A deictic etymology for te has been consid-ered by various authors, linking it with the OIA pronoun ta- (Pobo˙zniak 1964:
58), the Hindi correlative to (Pott 1845: 281), or OIA iti ‘so’ (Sampson 1926:
363). The correlative function is an attractive etymology as it can be related to the semantic dependency that characterises Romani te (see Matras 1994a:
231–3).
Friedman (1985) discusses te in the context of what he calls the ‘Dental Modal Subordinator’ of the Balkan languages (Balkan Slavic da, Albanian t¨e, Romanian s˘a, Greek na). The primary function of the modal subordinator in all Balkan languages is, according to Friedman, to denote ontologically non-real events. Four domains are typically covered by the modal subordinator:
dependent modal (infinitive), dependent aspectual (such as ‘to begin’), directive (optative), and conditional. Consider the (Common) Romani examples:
(58) astaren te keren buti start.3pl comp do.3pl work
‘they are starting to work’
(59) so te phenav?
what comp say.1sg
‘what shall I say?’
(60) te sas ma love. . . comp was me money
‘if I had money’
It is clear from the functional scope covered by te that its inherent meaning is semantic–pragmatic, namely to relativise the truth-value of a predication.
The conditions for the actual realisation of the predication may be set either in the modal or aspectual verb, or in the conditional protasis, or pragmatically in the situational context of the directive-optative.
UnlikeKAJ, which is often borrowed, te is stable.4There are only two dialects that have not retained the factuality dichotomy; both use te in factual /indicative (epistemic) complements as well:
(61) phendas pesk¯e dak¯ı ‘kan˚a te w˚antselas te said.3sg refl.gen mother.dat now comp want.3sg.rem comp dˇzal (Welsh Romani; Sampson 1926: 225)
go. 3sg
‘he told his mother that he now wanted to go’
(62) dopo ˇsuni ti hilo mulo then hear.3sg comp is.m dead.m
(Istrian /Slovene Romani; Dick Zatta 1996: 201)
‘then she hears that he is dead’
Similar use of te in epistemic complements is also found in R¨udiger’s sample from 1782 (see Matras 1999a: 100).
In linking two predications,KAJand te can be taken to represent two extreme ends on a continuum of clause integration (in the sense of Giv´on 1990):KAJ links clauses with independent truth-value, te represents the higher degree of integration, marking out predications that have no independent truth-value. In between these two extremes, there is a continuum of clause-linking devices drawn upon to express more ambivalent relations, notably manipulation and various kinds of purpose clauses. The key to a typology of clause-linking devices in such constructions is the degree of semantic integration of the events, and more specifically the degree of semantic control that is attributed to the agent of the main clause. The cline of semantic control governs a choice between te for the highest degree of control (and so tightest integration), and a complex subordinator in which te participates alongside a ‘reinforcer’, for the lower degree of control (less tight integration of the clauses).
The use of a ‘reinforcer’ in combination with the Modal Subordinator is an-other typical Balkan feature (see Friedman 1985: 385). The reinforcer in Romani is either theKAJsubordinator itself, or a borrowed conjunction or preposition,
4 An exception is the Dolenjski dialect of Slovenia (Cech and Heinschink 2001). See note in chapter 8, and see below.
which is modelled on the purpose clause structure in the contact language. Thus we find iconicity at two levels. First, tight integration is represented by the struc-turally simple subordinator, while loose integration is represented by the more complex form. This is in line with the universals of clause integration discussed by Giv´on (1990). Second, with tighter semantic integration inherited forms persist, while loose integration aligns itself with discourse-level operations in its susceptibility to external contact influences (see chapter 8 on grammatical borrowing).
We find tight integration when manipulative intent is attributed to the agent / manipulator. Here, control is less relevant, since the truth-value of the agent’s intent stands, irrespective of whether or not the target action is actually realised by the manipulee:
(63) mangav te des ma o pares (Dendropotamos Vlax)
demand.1sg comp give.2sg me.obl art money
‘I would like you to give me the money’
(64) me kamaua te krel ko rom kova (Sinti; Holzinger 1993: 157) I want.1sg comp do.3sg this man that
‘I want this man to do this’
Permission attributes control to the agent, equally allowing for tight integration.
In Sinti, the te subordinator can even be omitted, calquing German (machen lassen):
(65) job mukel man an i virta te dˇzal he let.3sg me.obl in art pub comp go.3sg (Sinti; Holzinger 1993: 159)
‘he let me go to the pub’
(66) tek nicht muk¯es les an peskro kher sovel nobody neg let.3sg.rem him.obl in refl.gen house sleep.3sg (Sinti; Holzinger 1993: 169)
‘nobody allowed him to sleep in their house’
(67) na delys lake te xal (Polska Roma; Matras 1999b: 19) neg give.3sg.rem her.dat comp eat.3sg
‘he gave her nothing to eat’
(68) le graste andi len paj meklom te pil
art.obl horse.obl in river water allowed.1sg comp drink.3sg (Roman; Halwachs 1998: 198)
‘I let the horse drink water in the river’
(69) na mukelas i rakles ti kerel phari buti neg let.3sg.rem art.obl boy.obl comp do.3sg hard work (Sepeˇci; Cech and Heinschink 1999: 119)
‘he didn’t allow the boy to work hard’
Imperative directives on the other hand rank lower on the semantic integration continuum for manipulation. Here, the agent tries to force the manipulee into carrying out the target action, but lacks the kind of control that is attributed to the agent for instance with verbs that express permission. Individual dialects behave differently in this respect, and sometimes different solutions can be found within an individual dialect. In the Polska Roma variety in (71), the additive conjunc-tion in the second part of the complement allows the downgrading of the com-plex subordinator kaj te to plain te. In Roman, theKAJ-type subordinator is Hungarian hot; in Bugurdˇzi the complex subordinator is modelled on Albanian q¨e t¨e:
(70) phendem lake te anel amenge pai (Dendropotamos Vlax) said.1sg her.dat comp bring.3sg us.dat water
‘I told her to fetch us water’
(71) phendˇza lake kaj te jandel pani, i te kerel jag told.3sg her.dat comp comp bring.3sg water and comp make.3sg fire andry bov (Polska Roma; Matras 1999b: 19)
in stove
‘she told her to fetch water, and to light a fire in the stove’
(72) phen tra dake, hot te mekel len mange
say your.obl mother.dat comp comp let.3sg them.obl me.dat efkar te koˇstalinel. . . (Roman; Wogg and Halwachs 1998: 49) once comp taste.3sg
‘tell your mother to let me taste them. . . ’
(73) zapretizas lake o rom ˇci te na tromal. . . warned.3sg her.dat art man comp comp neg dare.3sg (Bugurdˇzi; Boretzky 1993a: 99)
‘her husband warned her that she should not dare. . . ’
Like manipulation clauses, purpose clauses also show a continuum of se-mantic integration, marked out by the complexity of the subordinator. Here too, there is variation among the dialects. Rather tight semantic integration is given in predications that express movement of an agent toward achieving a target.
In most dialects, plain te is used to link the clauses. However, some dialects employ, either optionally or regularly, a borrowed purpose expression as a ‘re-inforcer’ in a position preceding te. This is the case with Sinti um te (German um. . . zu), and Dendropotamos ja te (Greek gia . . . na):
(74) me avilom ti dikhav tumen I came.1sg comp see.1sg you.pl (Sepeˇci; Cech and Heinschink 1999: 19)
‘I have come to see you’
(75) taˇsa dˇzasam sare dro veˇs kaˇsta te ˇcinel tomorrow go.1pl all in forest wood.pl comp cut.3sg (Polska Roma; Matras 1999b: 19)
‘tomorrow we will all go to the forest to cut wood’
(76) me ka dˇzav ko drom kadle ra´cja te rodav I fut go.1sg to road this.obl girl.obl comp search.1sg (Bugurdˇzi; Boretzky 1993a: 99)
‘I will go to search for this girl’
(77) job dˇzajas an i gaˇcima (um) te piel-o lovina he go.3sg.rem in art pub comp comp drink.3sg.m beer (Sinti; Holzinger 1993: 183)
‘he went to the pub to drink beer’
(78) avilem ´chere ja te dikhav tut (Dendropotamos Vlax) came.1sg home comp comp see.1sg you.obl
‘I came home in order to see you’
Note that Romani has no strict rule on linking purpose clauses that show subject agreement (Same Subject), as opposed to subject switch (Different Subject). If there is no overall preference for a complex subordinator in purpose clauses, then variation is likely to be sensitive to the degree of control in regard to the specific combination of predications, i.e. the likely outcome of the target event. Thus, both same-subject and different-subject constructions can be linked by plain te when the outcome is not contentious:
(79) bikinas colura te ˇsaj traisaras (Lovari; Matras 1994a: 230) sell.1pl carpets comp can live.1pl
(Same Subject)
‘we sell carpets to make a living’
(80) job dˇzajas an i gaˇcima te budevel naj leskri he go.3sg.rem in art pub comp work.3sg can his romni khere (Sinti; Holzinger 1993:183) (Different Subject) wife home
‘he went to the pub so that his wife could work at home’
(81) ´ande thovav d´uj sekvis´egi, s´agoˇsno t’ ovel in put.1sg two cloves fragrant comp be.subj.3sg (Farkaˇsda Romungro; Elˇs´ık et al. 1999: 379) (Different Subject)
‘I put in two cloves to make it smell good’
Different-subject constructions take a complex subordinator when agent con-trol is weaker and it is more difficult to achieve the target. Note in (84) the combination of both kaj and te in Farkaˇsda Romungro (southern Slovakia) with the Croatian-derived purpose clause marker nek: