Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCourthiade, Marcel
dc.date.accessioned2015-07-14T20:20:46Z
dc.date.available2015-07-14T20:20:46Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.citationMarcel Courthiade, Alfabet odpowiedni dla języka cygańskiego, oparty na naukowych podstawach – o pisowni języka rromani, "Studia Romologica", 2009, nr 2, s. 105-152.pl_PL
dc.identifier.issn1689-4758
dc.identifier.urihttps://depot.ceon.pl/handle/123456789/7158
dc.description.abstractA still strikingly relevant quotation by the Poznań philologist Kalina, dated 1880, opens the article and another one, by UNESCO vice-director general Colin, dated 1989, emphasizes the significance of Rromani as a language of culture. The two great principles defined in London (1971) are then introduced: 1. no dialectal preference & 2. the need of a common language. They gave birth to the refusal of selecting a concrete dialect as common language; all have to be collected within a polylectal common language. The article exemplifies such a mechanism on the basis of Polish material (mazurzenie) and how it de facto exists in Spanish. It tells also how separately arose the polylectal approach in Rusia and Yugoslavia. One has to understand that brains integrate a kind of filter transforming hearing into understanding – a device very much needed when listening to people with defectve pronunciation or foreign accent. The second important question was to define how many Rromani languages are at stake in Europe? Dialectological and dialectometrical data pointed out at the existence of only one Rromani language, heritage of some 90% of the Rroms, beside collateral forms which arose from the melting of Rromani with other local languages (paggerdilects and peripheral idioms). The third task was to elaborate a really linguistic classification of the Rromani varieties and the article describes shortly the dialectal structure of Rromani: two superdialects (O and E) and four dialects (O♮, O#, E♮ and O# – ♮=without mutation, #=with mutation) – beside paggerdilects and peripheral idioms. The fourth step was to elaborate a typology of differences between the various varieties and to highlight the relationship of these differences with the question of understanding. This leads us to the three stages of standardisation: 1. Codification (graphisation, literalisation), 2. Normalisation & 3. Stylisation-popularisation. The article, which treats only codification, brings out the Warsaw decision on a Common alphabet in 21 paragraphs, with detailed comments paragraph by paragraph. To be short, the Rrom from Poland has to learn no more than seven spelling rules in order to acquire the common Rromani writing system. The basis is: everyone is supposed to make a little effort and everything will be much easier for all. New technologies haven’t been forgotten and the article explains how to use Rromani typefaces in IT. In this context, when every year more than 25,000 Rromani pupils are taught in this alphabet in Rumania and many others a the European level, the Rrom from Poland faces the following choice: a vision of his mother-tongue as a cultural with folkloric curio (then he can use the Polish alphabet for it) or a vision in which Rromani is a lively and vigorous source of creation, known all over Europe and beyond: then he has no other choice than to leave aside petty ambitions and learn the seven rules of the European, or Warsaw, spelling system.pl_PL
dc.description.abstractJekh Ŵi adadives but relevànto citàcia e Poznaněsqëre filologesqëri, e Kalinasqëri, andar-o b. 1880, putrel o artìklo thaj jekh aver citàcia, e UNESCOsqëre vice-direktoresqëri, e Colinesqëri, andar-o b. 1989, sikavel o vasnipen e rromane ćhibǎqëro. O artìklo mothovel pal-odova o duj bare princìpe katar-e Londonesqëro rromano kongrèso (b. 1971): 1. naj niekh dialèkta laćheder e averěnθar & 2. kamlǒl pes jekh khetani ćhib. Lenθar thàvdel i pozìcia so naśti te alosardǒl jekh konkrèto dialèkta vaś-i ćhib khetani; savorre kampel te kidinǒn anda jekh polilektàlo khetani ćhib. O artìklo sikavel sar śaj ovèlas implementuime akaja princìpa pe polskikane ćhibǎqëri misal (mazurzenie) thaj sar si de facto and-i espanikani ćhib. Mothovel vi sar biandili i polilektàlo vìzia khrigal and-i Rùsia thaj khrigal and-i Jugoslàvia angla 30-40 berś. I bàza si te halǒl o manuś so and-i godǐ si jekh fìltro savo paruvel so śunas anda so halǒvas. Bi kadalesqëro naśti ovèlas te halǒvas e manuśen so si len dośvali ja avrutni pronunciàcia. O dùjto vasno pućhipen sas athòska: ketǐ rromani ćhibǎ isi ćaćipnasθe and-i Evròpa? I dialektològia thaj i dialektomètria sikaven so si jekh ćhib rromani, i ćhib 90%/qëri e Rromenθar thaj vi fòrme so biandile katar-o bilǒpen e rromane ćhibǎqëro avere lokalone ćhiběnçar (paggerdilèkte thaj periferìko rakerimàta). I trìto butǐ sas te kerdǒl jekh ćaćes lingvistikani klasifikàcia e rromane variantenqëri thaj o artìklo mothovel xarnes i dialektologikani struktùra e rromane ćhibǎqëri: duj superdialèkte (O thaj E) thaj śtar dialekte (O♮, O#, E♮ thaj O# – ♮=bi mutaciaqëro, #=mutaciaça) – khrigal e paggerdilektenθar thaj e periferikone rakerimatenθar. I śtàrto padmad sas te kerdǒl jekh tipològia e diferencenqëri maśkar-o verver variànte thaj te ròdas i relàcia e diferencenqëri e halǒvipnasqëre pućhipnaça. Lingǎrel amen anda trin etàpe e standardizaciaqëri: 1. i kodifikàcia (grafizàcia, literalizàcia), 2. i normalizàcia & 3. i stilizàcia-popularizàcia. O artìklo lel pes sadaj (nùmaj) e kodifikaciaça thaj anel avri e Varśavaqëri decìzia pal-i Khetani alfabèta anda 21 paragràfe, xurdikane komentareça paragràfa pal-i paragràfa. Xarnikanes, dikhas so o Rrom e Polskaqëro si les te siklǒl na buteder desar efta règule kaj te Ŵanel o khetano lekhavipen rromano. I bàza si: sarkon te del pes kuti (xarri, cèra) zor aj savorrenqe te ovel but lokheder. Naj bisterdi i nevikani texnològia thaj o artìklo mothovel sar te labǎrdǒl i rromani alfabèta and-i IT(elektrogoděnqëri texnològia). Adadives, kana sarkon berś buteder desar 25.000 rromane siklǒvne siklǒn and-akaja alfabèta and-i Rumània thaj vi but avera p-e Evropaqëro nivèlo, o Rrom and-i Pòlska musaj te alosarel maśkar jekh vìzia kaj lesqëri ćhib si sadaj jekh kulturo-folkoristìko kuriozum (athòska śaj lekhavel vi gaŴikane patranençar) thaj jekh vìzia kaj i ćhib si jekh Ŵivdi zorali xaing kreaciaqëri pinŴardi anda sa i Evròpa aj avrial laθar: athòska naj les aver alosaripen desar te mukhel rigaθe tikne ambìcie aj te siklǒl o efta règule e Varśavaqëro lekhavipnasqëre.pl_PL
dc.language.isoplpl_PL
dc.publisherMuzeum Okręgowe w Tarnowiepl_PL
dc.rightsDozwolony użytek
dc.subjectjęzykoznawstwopl_PL
dc.subjectkodyfikacjapl_PL
dc.subjectjęzyk romskipl_PL
dc.subjectRomowiepl_PL
dc.titleAlfabet odpowiedni dla języka cygańskiego, oparty na naukowych podstawach – o pisowni języka rromanipl_PL
dc.title.alternativeAn Alphabet suitable for Rromani, built up on scientific grounds – about the spelling of Rromanipl_PL
dc.title.alternativeJekh alfabèta maladi e rromane ćhibǎqe, thaj savi aćhol pe Ŵantrikane bàze – pal-e rromane ćhibǎqëro ćhand lekhavipnasqëropl_PL
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlepl_PL
dc.contributor.organizationInstitut national des Langues et Civilisations orientalespl_PL
dc.description.epersonNatalia Gancarz


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Dozwolony użytek
Using this material is possible in accordance with the relevant provisions of fair use or other exceptions provided by law. Other use requires the consent of the holder.