28
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.56.08.3
How to Cite:
Nechytailo, I., Kovaliuk, O., & Gorodyska, O. (2022). Eastern Romance borrowings in Ukrainian dialects (Indo-European
retrospective). Amazonia Investiga, 11(56), 28-37. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.56.08.3
Eastern Romance borrowings in Ukrainian dialects
(Indo-European retrospective)
Східнороманські запозичення в українських діалектах
(індоєвропейська ретроспектива)
Received: August 20, 2022 Accepted: September 22, 2022
Written by:
Iryna Nechytailo7
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8595-5874
Olha Kovaliuk8
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4251-3432
Olga Gorodyska9
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2125-0618
Abstract
The article deals with the original Eastern
Romance vocabulary recorded in the dialects of
the Ukrainian language and its proto-forms, as
well as examines the formation of the semantics
of Eastern Romance borrowings from the Proto-
Indo- European period to the present. To achieve
the goal, the author compiles a corpus of original
Romance words presented in Ukrainian dialects,
determines their Indo- European, Italic and Latin
proto-forms, corrects those of them indicated in
the etymological literature, and establishes
regularities of semantic transformations of
various thematic groups on the axis of Proto-
Indo-European language – Proto- Italic – Latin –
ancient and modern Eastern Romance languages
and dialects – Ukrainian dialects. The study
proves that the Proto-Indo-European origins of
Eastern Romance dialectisms, which had the
meanings “action” and “state”, as a result of
natural changes in the semantic structure,
acquired the meanings of objects of practical
human activity and became the basis for naming
the animal and plant world of the Carpathian
region, tools and the results of the work of the
ancient population of the West of Ukraine.
Key words: Eastern Romance borrowings,
Ukrainian dialects, etymology, Proto- Indo-
European stems, regularities of semantic
development.
7
DSc in Linguistics, Professor, Professor of the Department of Slavic Studies of Kyiv National Linguistic University, Ukraine.
8
PhD in Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of Philological and Natural Sciences of the Institute of International
Cooperation and Education of the National Aviation University, Ukraine.
9
Lecturer at Borys Grinchenko Kyiv Metropolitan University, Ukraine.
Nechytailo, I., Kovaliuk, O., Gorodyska, O. / Volume 11 - Issue 56: 28-37 / August, 2022
Volume 11 - Issue 56
/ August 2022
29
https://www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Introduction
In the last few decades, Ukrainian etymological
science has paid considerable attention to
dialectological issues, successfully combining
the conceptual apparatus of dialectology and the
reconstruction of proto-lingual states. Due to
this, numerous cases of lexical borrowings of the
languages bordering on peripheral dialects of
Ukraine fell into its circle of interests. Studies of
ways and means of assimilation of Eastern
Romance words by Ukrainian dialects stand out
against this background. Scientific findings in
this field have become diagnostically valuable in
determining migration flows and contacts of
Proto-Slavs and ancient Slavs, for the
reconstruction of the Slavic proto-lingual area.
Specialists in Slavic studies and Eastern
Romance studies conducted large-scale studies
of the influence of the Romanian, Moldavian,
and Aromanian languages on the formation of the
vocabulary of Western and South-Western
Ukrainian dialects. The analysis of borrowings
was carried out in the general language context
(Popescu, 2007; Nechytailo, 2011; Нolovach,
2012, Cozmei, 2014; Burduja, 2020) or on the
material of certain sayings (Verkhratsky, 1902;
Lysenko, 1974; Karpenko, & Lukyaniuk,
1971–1979; Pradid, 2006; Huzar, & Zakrevska,
1997; Miroshnychenko, 2005; Huyvanyuk,
2005; Mohyla, & Kondratenko, 2022), as well as
focused on separate thematic groups of
borrowings (Lobiuc, 1971; Vișovan, 2001;
Kozhukhar, 2014; Kovaliuk, 2017).
Etymologists consider the main practical tasks in
the field of Romance loanwords in the Ukrainian
language to be an in-depth search for the origins
of Romanisms, their etymological analysis, a
comprehensive study of ways of adapting
loanwords in all possible aspects, establishing the
regularities of their semantic transformations on
the axis of Proto-Indo-European language –
Proto-Italic language – Latin – modern Eastern
Romance languages and dialects – Ukrainian
dialects.
The subject of the paper
The object of the research is the original Eastern
Romance vocabulary recorded in the dialects of
the Ukrainian language and its proto-forms.
The aim of the article
The purpose of the article is to study the
formation of the semantics of Eastern
Romanisms from Proto-Indo-European times to
the present. To achieve the goal, the author plans
to compile a corpus of specific Romance
vocabulary presented in Ukrainian dialects, to
determine their Indo-European, Italian and Latin
proto- forms, if necessary correcting those of
them that are presented in the etymological
literature, as well as to establish the types of
semantic transformations of Romanisms on the
axis of Proto-Indo-European language – Proto-
Italic language – Latin language – ancient and
modern Eastern Romance languages and
dialects – Ukrainian dialects.
Research background
The multifaceted problem of the interaction of
Ukrainian and Eastern Romance languages,
lexical borrowings, their chronology and
protolingual sources, as well as semantic and
formal transformations of protostems remain
relevant even in our time. Until the beginning of
the 21st century, Ukrainian dialectological
romance philology accumulated a significant
amount of specific material in the context of
etymological research, which increasingly
requires deepening of etymological research.
Researchers of Eastern Romance loanwords did
not always manage to cross the “Latin border” of
reconstruction. In his works on this issue,
E. Vrabie in particular based on the etymological
dictionaries of the Ukrainian language, made a
convincing attempt to subject the Romanian and
Moldavian elements inherent in the Ukrainian
language to a deeper interpretation (Vrabie,
1991; Rudnyc'kyj, 1962–1982). Here, as well as
in (Vrabie, 1967), a large dialect layer of words
is reconstructed in compliance with the
diachronic depth of the basic vocabulary and
fixed mainly in Latin as the source language.
A considerable number of Romanian and
Moldavian loanwords are collected in the
Etymological Dictionary of the Ukrainian
Language: here the ways of their penetration into
Ukrainian dialects are explained, the
intermediary languages are indicated, and the
Latin source of each of the registered words is
highlighted (Melnychuk, 1982–2012; Lukinova,
2013).
The etymology of both entire lexical-semantic
microsystems and individual dialectisms attracts
the attention of researchers. While studying the
oronyms of the Ukrainian Carpathians,
Yu. O. Karpenko was able to distinguish in this
lexical array both the Proto-Slavic layer and the
30
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Romance contribution to the onymy of the
western region (Karpenko, 1999). Versions about
the Romanian borrowing of the dialectal words
къча, жбир, грун, грехит, глижа, клечец, etc.
he refutes it by appealing not only to Proto-Slavic
and Latin, but also to Proto-Indo-European
stems.
The level of etymological research of
N. І. Pashkova is deepening more often. The
extensive dialectological, lexicographic, and
etymological material of the comparative-
historical study of the dialect element кошара,
the involvement of Indo-European proto-forms
allowed her to shed light on the origins of this
Carpathianism (Pashkova, 2020).
Etymological dictionaries of the Romanian
language significantly enrich our understanding
of the history of the emergence of Romanisms.
The Etymological Dictionary of the Romanian
Language (Ciorănescu, 2001), contains serious
substantiations of Latin words as the source of
most of the Eastern Romance lexicon and a large
list of Slavisms. The more ancient origins of
Romanianisms in the Ukrainian language can be
revealed by turning to the Etymological
Dictionary of the Romanian Language by
M. Vinereanu (Vinereanu, 2008), because the
author recognizes Indo-European antiquity as the
oldest level of origin of words.
To specify the successive semantic changes of
Indo-European proto-forms, it is worth referring
to M. de Vaan’s Etymological Dictionary of the
Latin Language: by comparing Romance
lexemes, the researcher recreates the Proto-Italic
etymon as a significant stage of development
from the Proto-Indo-European base to modern
languages (Vaan, 2008). This explanatory
impulse is a strong point of the proposed
reconstruction.
At the time, the need for deepening
reconstructions of the Romanian-Moldavian
stratum, etymologizing it to the Indo-European
and even Proto-Indo-European level is felt more
and more.
Methodology
The analysis of the lexical microsystem of
Eastern Romance dialectisms was carried out
using a complex methodology, which ensured the
identification of diachronic and synchronic
characteristics essential for their retrospective
study. The diachronic approach involved the
analysis of the semantic history of proto- lingual
stems and made it possible to trace the
regularities of their evolution. The main method
of research is comparative-historical, with the
help of which the meaning dynamics of
protostems are traced and the regularities of the
semantic formation of of Romanisms are
established on the axis of Proto-Indo-European
language – Proto-Italic language – Latin
language – modern Eastern Romance languages
and dialects – Ukrainian dialects. Collection of
factual material from dictionaries was conducted
by the continuous sampling method.
The method of semantic parallels contributed to
revealing the regularity of semantic
transformations of Indo-European proto-stems in
the formation of dialectisms of Eastern Romance
origin.
Results and Discussion
The diachronic study of Romanisms in the
composition of Ukrainian dialects aims to
reconstruct their morphological and semantic
state not only in the Latin, but also in the Proto-
Italic and Proto-Indo-European periods. At this
point, the research is faced with the problem of
the peculiarities of the semantics of proto-stems.
Proto- forms are presented as nouns or as verb
stems in etymological dictionaries. Those the
proto-stems with process-event semantics can be
considered earlier, because in the human mind,
the system of verbal meanings qualifies as a
decisive factor in the formation of the linguistic
picture of the world. Through action, a person
enters an active relationship with reality, because
action is a coordination centre that regulates the
relationship between a person and the world
(Kubryakova, 1992), so the verb shows the
greatest semantic-derivative ability.
The next stage of the existence of the proto-form
is the formation of verb nouns, the meanings of
which are motivated by the specifics of the
semantics of the verb.
Tracing the directions of the semantic derivation
of Romanisms from the Indo- European proto-
language to our time will be carried out
according to thematic groups.
Let us consider the Eastern Romance
borrowings, which reflect the eternal occupation
of Ukrainians in the Western and south-western
regions – animal husbandry. These are primarily
zoonyms.
The Western Ukrainian dialectal барза “black
sheep with white breast” or “white goat”,
borrowed from the Romanian language (barză
Volume 11 - Issue 56
/ August 2022
31
https://www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
“black stork with white wings and white breast”),
shows extreme antiquity and is characterized by
a certain opacity of etymology. А. Ciorănescu
considers it to be derived from Latin *gardea,
ardea “black heron” with primary *b-,
M. Vinereanu prefers Albanian origin (barth
“white”). It is possible that its Italic root is
*boþjo-, derived from Proto-Indo-European
*bherǝgos / bherǝĝā with the semantics “shine,
light, white color” and, more deeply, *bhereg-
“white, to shine” (Melnychuk, 1982, І, р. 142;
Trubachev, 1974, 1, р. 202; Ciorănescu, 2001,
р. 704; Vinereanu, 2008, р. 118; Pokorny, 1959,
2, р. 166; Vaan, 2008, р. 67–68). The proto-
lingual meaning “action”, “state” here changed to
“colour” and created the zoonym in the
Romanian language based on the colour of the
animal. There was a transition of the content on
the basis of Ukrainian dialect: ornithonym –
zoonym.
The names of sheeps by the color recorded in the
Carpathians отіша, as well as вотіша, вотішер
are explained as the result of borrowing from the
Moldavian or Romanian languages: oacheş(ă)
and dialect variants ṷótişă, oat'eşă, oakishî
“sheep with black near the eyes” are derived
from Romanian oachiu “eye” and earlier from
Latin oculus. We find their origins in the Proto-
Italic *ok(e)lo-, Proto-Indo- European root *okw-
“to see”. The basis of the nomination of sheep of
this breed is a bright sign – black colour around
the eyes (Melnychuk, 2003, 4, р. 233, Pokorny,
I, р. 4; Vinereanu, р. 591; Vaan, р. 425).
The Hutsul dialectism буча “black goat with a
white face”, бучє “the name of a sheep”, as well
as бучка “a black sheep with a white face”, бучко
“the name of a ram” underwent significant
semantic changes, because in the Romanian
language, where it came from, bucă means
“cheek”, as in Latin bucca “swollen, filled
cheek”, a continuation of Proto-Italic *bukka-.
The Indo-European proto-root of this name can
be considered *bʰeHw- “to swell” (Melnychuk,
1982, 1, р. 313; Pokorny, 2, р. 114; Vinereanu,
р. 160; Vaan, р. 76). The verb meaning of the
original proto- form was transformed into the
name of a body part. It is noted that the zoonym
is based on a distinctive feature of the animal’s
appearance.
The nickname of the cow Маргудза, a modified
loanword from the Moldavian language
(Moldavian мургуцє or Romanian murgúţă
“also”), is a diminutive form of мургэ (murgă)
“roan” from the Latin merus “pure, unmixed;
clear, clean”, derived from the Proto-Italic base
*mero-. Its original Proto-Indo-European form is
considered to be *mau-ro- “weak, dark” – from
mer-, merk-, mer(e)k-, mer(e)gh- “to twinkle, to
shine” (Melnychuk, 1989, 3, р. 391–392;
Pokorny, 2, р. 223; Vinereanu, р. 557; Vaan,
р. 376). Here we also trace the development of
semantics in the direction: action – sign by action
– zoonym.
According to the same principle, the Hutsul
dialectism корнута “horned sheep” and
Bukovinian корнуца “sheep with straight horns”,
and курнута “sheep with small horns”, which
come from the Romanian cornútă “horned” and,
further, from the Latin cornūta “also”, related to
the noun cornū “horn”. The name was also based
on an external feature – the presence of horns,
with specification in Ukrainian dialects. Latin
cornūta, cornū reflect Proto-Italic *komu-,
*komo-“horn” and Indo-European proto-form
*k
er-, *k
erǝ- : *k
rā-, *k
erei-, *k
ereu-“horn”
(from *(s)ker-4, (s)kerǝ-, (s)krē- “to cut off”)
(Melnychuk, 1989, 3, р. 32; Pokorny, 1, р. 403;
Vaan, р. 136–137).
The dialectism курта “squat-tailed shepherd” is
also borrowed from the Romanian language, but
in Romanian Curtu is the name of a tailless dog,
from Latin сurtus “short”, from Proto-Italic
*kortos and, further, from Proto-Indo-European
*(s)kr tós “short” from*(s)ker- “to cut”
(Melnychuk, 1989, 3, р. 158; Vaan, р. 157–158).
Fertility, as one of the most important abilities of
domestic animals, can also be the basis for the
name. The noun штиря “barren sheep” from
Romanian štiră “barren” (about animals), less
often “barren” (about women), which may have
been inherited from the Latin language (sterilis
“barren”), is especially revealing here. Its
hypothetical Proto-Italic form *ster-eli-, *ster-f-,
Proto-Indo-European – *ster- “hard, frozen”
(Melnychuk, 2012, 6, р. 477, Pokorny, 2, р. 627;
Vinereanu, р. 813; Vaan, р. 586). The original
name underwent a semantic narrowing in
Ukrainian.
The issue of the origin of the south-western
dialectism куцилей “little dog”, borrowed from
Moldavian language (кэцел “puppy; baby
carnivore” from Latin catellus “puppy, dog” and
from catulus “small animal (mainly kitten,
puppy)”), is limited only by Proto-Italic *kat-
elo “also” with the assumption of motivation
*katlo- “sacrificial animal” (Melnychuk, 3,
р. 166; Vaan, 2008, р. 98). For them, A. Walde
also proposed a common verb-noun Proto-Indo-
European root *kat- “to give birth to young”,
“baby animal” (Walde, 1906, 1, p. 183). Thus,
the deverbative Latin name retained its meaning
32
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
in the Romanian and Moldavian languages and
underwent semantic modification in Ukrainian.
The verbal method of formation is also
demonstrated by the names of groups of animals.
For example, Boyki dialect word турма “flock,
pack; band, crowd, herd” is a formation with a
generalization of the meaning from the
Romanian túrmă “flock”, which comes from the
Latin turma “squadron; crowd”. Roots are set for
it: Pre-Latin *torba, then Proto-Italic *tṛf-ā
and, ultimately, Proto-Indo-European *(s)tṛbh–
“confusion (disorderly movement, commotion)”
and the verb proto-stem *tuer-, *tur- “to move
quickly, spin” (Melnychuk, 2006, 5, р. 682;
Pokorny, 1, р. 749; Vinereanu, р. 853; Vaan,
р. 634).
A limited number of zoonyms have a noun
origin. Let us turn to the zoonyms of the Eastern
Romanсe source for the designation of cubs. For
example, the name laituk “young goat” in
Western dialects was derived from the modified
Moldavian vetui “goat (one-year-old)” or
Romanian vătúi, vătúie “young buck; one-year-
old goat until lambing”. Its source is defined as
Latin vitulus “calf; young animal”, derived from
Proto-Italic *wet-elo- “year-old calf”, Indo-
European proto-form *ṷet- “year”. (Melnychuk,
1982, 1, р. 366; 3, p. 185; Pokorny, 1, р. 251;
Vaan, р. 687).
Age is defined here as the basis for naming in the
Pre-Italic period. In the Romanian and
Moldavian languages, we observe a shift of
meaning to another kind of animal.
Let us turn to dialect ornithonyms, such as, for
example, Western Ukrainian пікір “field lark,
Alauda arvensis L.” and Boyki пікєр “wagtail”,
also derived from the Romanian dialect píchere
“guinea fowl, Numida meleagris”. These names
are formed from the Romanian onomatopoeic
píchiri (Melnychuk, 2003, 4, р. 402), motivated
by the onomatopoeia of pik. It can be assumed
that they are reflexes of onomatopoeia: Proto-
Italic *piko-, *peikā- and Proto-Indo-
European (s)pīko-(Vinereanu, р. 633–634;
Vaan, p. 464; Pokorny, 2, р. 81).
Another name of the skylark, noted in the West
of Ukraine, туртулій, as well as тутулій
“crested lark, Galerida cristata L.”, is derived
from the Romanian ornithonym turtureá
“turtledove, Streptorelia turtur L.”, tuturél “also
(male)”. They are inherited from the Latin
language: turturilla (turturella) are derived from
turtur “turtledove” with an onomatopoeic stem
(Melnychuk, 2006, 5, р. 684). According to the
specification of M. de Vaan, this form goes back
to Proto-Italic *torzdo-. Proto-Indo-European
*(s)treig-, streid(h)-, defined by Yu. Pokorny as
“to hiss” (Vaan, p. 634–635, Pokorny, 2, р. 651),
or *tet(e)r- “to croak”, *tu, *tutu “to imitate birds
or some dull sounds” (Vinereanu, р. 855).
Phytonyms are found among East Romance
dialect borrowings, for example, куреки “head
cabbage, Brassica oleracea L.”. The name comes
from Moldavian (курекь “cabbage”) or
Romanian (curéchі “also”) languages. They go
back to the Latin names coliculus (cauliculus)
“stem, shoot, sprout” – diminutives of caulis
“stem (mainly cabbage), cob”. At the Proto-Italic
level, they correspond to *kauli- “stem”, at
Proto-Indo-European – *(s)keh2u-l-i “plant
root, trunk”, motivated by *(s)ker-4, (s)kerǝ-,
(s)krē- “to cut off” (Melnychuk, 3, р. 153; Vaan,
p. 100, Pokorny, 1, р. 422, 2, р. 573).
Etymologically related to them is the phytonym
курнут “thorny weed” (from Moldavian курнуц
“needweed, Xanthium L.", Romanian cornút
“field hornwort, Cerastium arvense L.”, because
they come from the same Proto-Indo-European
root (Melnychuk, 3, р. 156; Pokorny, 1, р. 403).
In the development of the semantics of the Indo-
European proto-form, we trace the stages: action
– root, trunk of a plant – plant – cabbage –
(Ukrainian) a type of cabbage.
The agricultural work of the ancestors of South-
Western Ukrainians is reflected in the name
ґлюґа “heap of reed sheaves” borrowed from the
Moldavian language. Moldavian глугэ, as well as
Romanian glúgă, “hood; shock” comes from the
Latin cuculla “hood” and, according to
etymologists, is a loan word from the Illyrian or
Gaulish language. It is considered a reduplication
of the Proto-Indo-European stem (s)keu ǝ : (s)kū-
“to cover, roll up, bend”, which on the Romance
base was transformed into a name due to the
similarity of the form (to cover – covering –
headdress – cone-shaped pile) (Melnychuk, 1,
р. 531; Pokorny, 2, р. 546; Vinereanu,
р. 398–399).
Most of the Romanian and Moldavian
borrowings relate to animal husbandry and its
products. A direct borrowing from Romanian is
шкам “first-class wool”. Romanian scámă “wool
or cotton thread, fibre, carp” continues Latin
squama “scale”, motivated by Proto-Indo-
European *(s)kewH- “to cover” (Melnychuk, 4,
р. 426; Vaan, p. 583–584; Pokorny, 2, р. 546).
Therefore, the development of this Romanianism
can be represented by a scheme: surface action –
coating (scale) – wool, fiber – first-class wool. A
similar way of formation is demonstrated by the
Volume 11 - Issue 56
/ August 2022
33
https://www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
name of the lamb's wool of the autumn shearing
тушира (from Romanian tuşiră, tuşină “wool
from shorn sheep”), which continues Folk-
Latin *tonsionare and Latin tondere “to cut”,
Proto-Italic *tond-eje and Proto-Indo-European
*tond-eіe “to cut” (Melnychuk, 2006, 5, р. 689;
Vaan, p. 622).
Let us try to trace the development of the Hutsul
word ґляґ “part of the stomach of a ruminant
animal, used for fermenting milk”, as well as its
variants гляк, ґліґ, ґляґа, ґляґи, ґлеґ, кляк “also”,
borrowed from the Romanian language, where
chiag, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian chiag are
derived from Latin coāgulum “leaven, enzyme,
sourdough”. In turn, coāgulum comes from
cogo “connect, thicken, condense” < co-āgo,
where āgo “bring, lead” continues Proto-Italic
*ag- e/o- “to do, to act” and Proto-Indo-
European *aĝ- “to lead” (Melnychuk, 1982, 1,
р. 531; Vaan, p. 30–31; Pokorny, 1, р. 35).
We will also find out the semantic dynamics of
proto-forms for instrumental names. For
example, the south-western lexeme рашка “part
of a spinning wheel, a frame with teeth in which
the spool is turned and through which the spun
thread is wound onto the spool”, is related to
Romanian răşchiá “to wind on a reel”, răşchitór
“reel” and Folk Latin *rasclare “to scrape”. We
consider its proto-form to be Proto-Indo-
European *rēd-2: rōd-: rǝd- “to scratch”
(Melnychuk, 2006, 5, р. 35; Pokorny, 2, р. 369).
The instrumental name is motivated by the verbal
designation of the action that the device should
perform when spinning.
The south-western dialectism фурка “a pitchfork
with three horns” (from the Romanian furcă “a
pitchfork”, derived from the Latin furca “a two-
pronged pitchfork, a pitchfork” does not have a
reliable etymology until now. M. de Vaan
suggests that the proto-form *ghorka > *fo/urca
entered Latin from one of the substratum
dialects. Then, according to J. Pokorny, the
Proto-Indo-European form *ghrebh-1, *gherbh-
“to grab, to seize”, *g'hei- “to catch, to take”
became the origin of this Romanian name
(Melnychuk, 2012, 6, р. 140; Vaan, p. 251–252;
Pokorny, 1, р. 652; Vinereanu, р. 371).
Romanianism acquired a concrete meaning in the
Ukrainian dialect.
Among the dialectisms there are the names of
household items, it is worth referring to the
Bukovinian дзестра, дзестри “dowry”,
зестра, зестрє, зестри, зястра “also”,
borrowed from Romanian (zéstre “dowry”) or
Moldavian (зестре “also; property”) languages.
They are united by the Latin dextrae “gift;
solemn promise”, which comes from dextra
“right hand”. The specified lexemes reflect the
Proto-Italic *dextero-; *deks(i)wo-, Proto-Indo-
European *deks-tero- “right; to the right”, *deks-
(i)uo- “that which is right” and finally *dek
- “to
take” (Melnychuk, 1985, 2, р. 58; Vaan, p. 168;
Pokorny, 1, р. 782).
Let us trace the origin of the names of clothes
inherent in the dialects that bordered on the
Eastern Romance languages. Regarding the
Hutsul name петек (as well as петак, петок)
“a type of half-captan”, there is an opinion that
they are borrowed from the Romanian or
Moldavian languages, where pétec “patch, piece,
rag” is derived from the Middle Latin pettacium
“a piece of cloth”, which in Latin means “piece
of parchment or cloth”. Although there are no
deeper studies of pettacium, we assume its origin
from Proto-Italic *pet-e/o, which continues
Proto- Indo-European *pt-(e)i- “to fly” (by
analogy with the formation of Ukrainian латка
from Proto-Slavic *lata “patch”, *latati “to fly,
to scatter, to dangle” (Melnychuk, 2003, 4,
р. 361; Trubachev, 1987, 14, р. 47–48; Vaan,
p. 463–464; Pokorny, 1, р. 19).
Landscape names are essential for farming.
The landscape name аршиця “steep mountain,
sunny side of the mountain” is defined as
borrowing from Eastern Romance languages:
Moldavian аршицэ “heat”, Romanian árşíţa
“also; pasture on a hill, in a forest on the sunny
side” come from the Folk-Latin *арсісіа
“burning” (Latin ardeo “burning”, арсі “I
burned”). Its origins can be seen in Proto-Italic
*ās-ē “to be dry”, Proto-Indo- European *h2eh-
“also”, ai-dh-, i-dh-, i-n-dh- “to burn”
(Melnychuk, 1982, 1, р. 91; Vaan, p. 53;
Pokorny, 2, р. 5). The modern meaning
has gone through the stages of formation from
the name of an action, a state, a sign, and a place
with this sign.
The etymology of the dialectal грун “hill”, грунь
“top, mountain ridge”, ґрунь “also” and (old)
грунь (XIV–XV centuries) as a loanwords from
the Romanian language (grúiu “hill, top of a
hill”) needs clarification. In our opinion, grúiu
continues Latin grumus “heap of earth, hill”,
Proto-Italic *gromo- “heap”, which became the
deverbative of Proto-Indo-European *ger- “to
wrap” (Melnychuk, 1982, 1, р. 606; Vaan,
p. 273; Pokorny, 1, р. 593).
A group of Romanic borrowings (the names of
water bodies) attracts attention. Ukrainian
34
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
dialectal балта “liquid swamp, swamp” comes
from Romanian báltă or Moldavian бáлтэ.
These names are sometimes compared with
Latin blatea “dirt” and are considered to be a
Thracian-Illyrian borrowing derived from the
Indo- European proto-form *bhol(ǝ)to-m /
*bhol(ǝ)ta, derived from the colour-signifying
*bhā-l- “bright, white” (Melnychuk, 1982, 1,
р. 128; Trubachev, 1975, 2, р. 179–182;
Vinereanu, р. 113). Yu. Pokorny
attributed this proto-form to the Indo-European
root *bhā-1, "bhō-, "bhǝ- “to shine” (Pokorny, 2,
р. 122).
The word лак “lake with swampy shores” also
found its way into Ukrainian dialects from the
Moldavian (лак) or Romanian (lac) languages,
the origins of which can be seen in Latin (lacus
“lake, pond; bath, tub, pit”) and, more deeply, in
Poto-Italic (*laku-) and Proto-Indo-European
(lok-u “lake”). For lacus, *laku- Yu. Pokorny
advocates the Indo-European proto-form *laku-
with the procedural meaning “accumulation of
water in a pit, pool, lake” (Melnychuk, 1989, 3,
р. 186; Vaan 336; Pokorny, 2, р. 380; Vinereanu,
р. 475).
The dialectal цара, in addition to meaning
“crowd”, is defined as “foreign party”. It came
from the Romanian language: ţară “country,
region”, “commoners, peasants”) and comes
from the Latin terra “earth”. The study of the
deeper origins of this name allows us to name its
Proto-Italic form *tersa- “land”, *tersо- “land,
region” and Proto-Indo-European ter-s- “to dry,
to wither” (hence, “dry area, dry land”)
(Melnychuk, 2012, 6, р. 228; Vaan,
р. 616–617; Pokorny, 1, р. 737; Vinereanu,
р. 856).
Socionyms and professionalisms make up an
important group of names that identify a person’s
role in society. For example, флут, флутур,
which in Western dialects mean “swindler,
scoundrel”, represent a semantically modified
borrowing from Romanian language: flúture
“butterfly” comes from Latin flūtulus, possibly
related to flūto “to flow, float”. Its origins
can be seen in the Proto-Italic root *flow-e/o-
and Proto-Indo-European *bhleuH-(e/o-),
*bhleu- “to flow; to blow” (Melnychuk, 2012, 6,
p. 112; Vaan, р. 228; Vinereanu, р. 362; Pokorny,
2, р. 213).
We agree that the dialectal журат “judge”
comes from Romanian, where jurát means “one
who has sworn; implacable; juror” and is related
to jurá “to swear”. Experts see its origins in
Latin jūro “I swear”, as well as in Proto-Italic
*jowos, *jowes- “oath, law”, Proto-Indo-
European *h2oi-u- “life force, eternity” or *i eu
os- “norm, right” (from *i eu- “to join”) (Vaan,
p. 316–317; Pokorny, 1, р. 203; Vinereanu,
р. 472). The ancient ritual of swearing consisted
in touching the object with which one swore
(Melnychuk, 1985, 2, p. 210).
Conclusions
As a result of the study of Eastern Romance
loanwords in the dialects of Western Ukraine,
Ukrainian dialectology and etymology faced the
task of establishing the Indo-European origins of
Romanian and Moldavian words learned in the
Ukrainian language.
In the south-western dialectal area of Ukraine
(Hutsul, Bukovyna, Boyki, Lemki dialects),
these borrowings (285 units) are differentiated by
thematic groups: names of animals, birds, plants,
products and work tools, household items,
landscape names and definitions of human social
roles.
Each group in diachrony shows specific semantic
and word-forming features. Thus, the names of
animals were formed from Proto-Indo-European
names of actions or states, which were
transformed into the names of the performer of
the specified action or the bearer of a certain
characteristic. In the Latin period, definitions
were formed, which in Romanian and Moldavian
languages ended as a noun – the name of an
animal based on a special external feature. On the
Ukrainian basis, such Romanisms undergo a
narrowing of meaning.
Proto-lingual onomatopoiea cause the formation
of bird names, which in Ukrainian dialects
undergo a shift in meanings. The origin of
phytonyms is based on Proto- Indo-European
names of forms of plants (stem, root, horn, pile,
etc.), which were also mostly formed in Latin and
are de-verbatives in Indo-European
retrospective.
The basis of the formation of the vocabulary of
animal husbandry products, as well as the names
of tools and household items, are the actions
performed during their production (cutting,
thickening, scraping, catching, taking, covering,
etc.). Landscape names developed on the base
of the verbal meanings of the original Indo-
European proto-stems and went through a long
path of transformation: “action” (“state”) –
“sign (form)” – “name of the area”.
Volume 11 - Issue 56
/ August 2022
35
https://www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Thus, Romance borrowings in Ukrainian dialects
developed from Indo-European proto-stems with
the semantics of action, and finally acquired
substantive meanings in the Proto-Italic and
Latin eras. Romanian and Moldavian lexemes
inherited Latin meanings with certain
modifications, and in dialects of the Ukrainian
language their adaptation took place in the
direction of semantic concretization.
Knowledge of the regularities of the semantic
development of loanwords on the axis Proto-
Indo-European language – Proto-Italic
language – Latin language – Eastern Romance
languages – Ukrainian dialectisms can help in
the reconstruction of Romanisms in other Slavic
languages, as well as in reproducing the picture
of Romance-Slavic language contacts in the
Carpathian region.
Bibliographic references
Burduja, V. N. (2020). The influence of the
Romanian language on the lexicon of the
Ukrainian language [Influența limbii române
asupra lexicului limbii ucrainene]. IASI
[Iași]. [in Romanian] URL:
http://mail.lit.uaic.ro/scoala_doctorala/DOC
UMENTE/CV%20drd%2020/Rezumatul%2
0N%20Burduja.pdf.
Ciorănescu, A. (2001). The etymological
dictionary of the Romanian language
[Dicționarul etimologic al limbii române].
Saeculum I. O. Publishing House, Bucharest
[Editura Saeculum I. O., București]. [in
Romanian]
Cozmei, A. (2014). Romanian-Ukrainian
linguistic interference (doctoral thesis)
[Interferențe lingvistice româno-ucrainene,
(teză de doctorat)], Suceava, “Stephen the
Great” University from Suceava [Suceava,
Universitatea “Ştefan cel Mare” din
Suceava]. [In Romanian]. URL:
http://exlibris.usv.ro:8991/F/EYJNP62HMSJ
PUMDNTV9XFJVQKSCRK2FB4FDV71Q
JF1RV8UTC3V-57196?func=find-
acc&acc_sequence=000733457
Нolovach, N. M. (2012). Lexical Romanianisms
in the Ukrainian language at the dialectal and
literary normative levels (doctoral thesis)
[Leksychni rumunizmy v ukrainskii movi na
dialektnomu ta literaturnonormatyvnomu
rivniakh, (dysertatsiia)]. Yuri Fedkovich
Chernivtsi National University, Chernivtsi
[Chernivetskyi natsionalnyi universytet
imeni Yuriia Fedkovycha]. [In Ukrainian].
Huyvanyuk, N. V. (2005). Dictionary of
Bukovinian idioms [Slovnyk bukovynskykh
hovirok]. Chernivtsi: Ruta Publishing House
[Vydavnytstvo Ruta]. [In Ukrainian]
Huzar, G., & Zakrevska, Ya. (1997). Hutsul
idioms: A short dictionary [Hutsulski
hovirky: korotkyi slovnyk]. Lviv: Institute of
Ukrainian Studies of the National Academy
of Sciences. [In Ukrainian]
Karpenko, Yu. O. (1999). Proto-Slavic oronymy
of the Ukrainian Carpathians. Notes on
onomastics [Praslovʼianska oronimiia
Ukrainskykh Karpat. Zapysky z
onomastyky]. Odesa: Astroprint. Vol. 7,
p. 17–23. [In Ukrainian]. URL:
http://dspace.onu.edu.ua:8080/bitstream/123
456789/18200/1/17-26.pdf
Karpenko, Yu. O., & Lukyaniuk, K. M. (1971–
1979). Materials for the dictionary of
Bukovinian sayings [Materialy do slovnyka
bukovynskykh hovirok]. Chernivtsi:
Chernivet State University [In Ukrainian].
URL:
http://194.44.152.155/elib/local/sk352306.pd
f
Kovaliuk, O. (2017) Borrowed token denoting
the emotional state of nervous excitement in
the old Ukrainian language of XIV–XVI
centuries [Modern Science]. Prague: Forests
[Nemoros]. Num. 5, p. 151–159.
Kozhukhar, E. S. (2014). Eastern Romance
borrowings in the names of food and drinks
in the Ukrainian dialects of the Republic of
Moldova [Vostochnoromanskie
zaimstvovaniya v nazvaniyah pishchi i
napitkov v ukrainskih govorah Respubliki
Moldova]. Slavic Readings [Slavyanskie
chteniya], Num. 3(9). [In Russian]
Kubryakova, E. S. (1992). Verbs of action
through their cognitive characteristics
[Glagoly dejstviya cherez ih kognitivnye
harakteristiki]. Logical analysis of language.
Models of action [Logicheskij analiz yazyka.
Modeli dejstviya]. Moscow: Science
[Nauka], p. 84–90. [In Russian]
Legchilina, E. (2020). Designing of social and
labor relations in the context of
transformation: principles, organizational
and institutional aspects. Revista Científica
Del Amazonas, 3(5), 43-53.
https://doi.org/10.34069/RC/2020.5.04
Lobiuc, I. (1971). Romanian loans in zoonimia
hutță [Împrumuturi românești în zoonimia
huțulă]. Yearbook of Linguistics and Literary
History XXII, Academy Publishing House
[Anuar de Lingvistică și Istorie Literară
XXII, Editura Academiei], Iasi [Iași]. [In
Romanian]
Lukinova, T. B. (2013). Ukrainian vocabulary:
semantic changes in borrowed words
[Ukrainska leksyka: semantychni zminy v
36
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
zapozychenykh slovakh]. Linguistics
[Movoznavstvo], p. 18–38. [In Ukrainian]
Lysenko, Ya. S. (1974). Dictionary of Polissya
dialects [Slovnyk poliskykh hovoriv]. Kyiv:
Nauk. [In Ukrainian]. URL: http://irbis-
nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-
bin/ua/elib.exe?Z21ID=&I21DBN=UKRLI
B&P21DBN=UKRLIB&S21STN=1&S21R
EF=10&S21FMT=online_book&C21COM=
S&S21CNR=20&S21P01=0&S21P02=0&S
21P03=FF=&S21STR=ukr0001576
Melnychuk, О. S. (Ed.). (1982–2012).
Etymological dictionary of the Ukrainian
language [Etymolohichnyi slovnyk
ukrainskoi movy]. Vol. 1 (1982), A-D [А–Г].
Vol. 2 (1985), D–Koptsi [Д–Копці]. Vol. 3
(1989), Kora-M [Кора–М]. Vol. 4 (2003),
N-P [Н–П]. Vol. 5 (2006), R-T [Р–Т]. Vol.6
(2012), Y-Z [У–Я]. Kyiv: Scientific opinion
[Naukova dumka]. [In Ukrainian]. URL:
http://litopys.org.ua/djvu/etymolog_slovnyk.
htm
Miroshnychenko, O. (2005). Eastern Romance
loanwords in Ukrainian South Bessarabian
dialects [Skhidnoromanski zapozychennia v
ukrainskykh pivdennobessarabskykh
hovirkakh]. Lviv: Dialectological studies
[Dialektolohichni studii] 5, p. 279–
284. [In Ukrainian]. URL:
http://www.inst-
ukr.lviv.ua/uk/publications/materials/docum
ents/?newsid=184
Mohyla, O., & Kondratenko, L. (2022).
Romanian lexical elements in the Carpathian
dialects of the Ukrainian language
[Rumunski leksychni elementy v
karpatskykh hovirkakh ukrainskoi movy].
World dimensions of educational trends
[Svitovi vymiry osvitnikh tendentsii]. Kyiv:
NAU, p. 15–22. [In Ukrainian]. URL:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UT_oamfm
SwyXwdilPixYmew3RNQGi4ip/view?usp=
sharing
Nechytailo, I. M. (2011). Paleo-Slavia and the
semantics of dialectisms [Paleoslaviia i
semantyka dialektyzmiv]. Scientific journal
of the NPU named after M. P. Drahomanov.
Modern trends in language development
[Naukovyi chasopys NPU imeni M. P.
Drahomanova. Suchasni tendentsii rozvytku
mov], Vol. 6, p. 163–167. [In Ukrainian]
Pashkova, N. (2020). Genesis of the Carpathism
Koshara. Slavia Orientalis, vol. LXIX,
No 4, p. 899. URL:
https://journals.pan.pl//dlibra/results?action=
AdvancedSearchAction&type=-
3&val1=Source:%22Slavia+Orientalis%5C
%3B+2020%5C%3B+vol.+LXIX%5C%3B
+No+4%5C%3B+899%5C-912%22
Pokorny, J. (1959). Indo-European Etymological
Dictionary [Indogermanisches
etymologisches Wörterbuch], Bern –
Munich, 2 Bde.[ In German].
Popescu, I. (2007). Romanian elements in the
Ukrainian language [Rumunski element v
ukrainskii movi]. Chernivtsi: Ruta
Publishing House [Vydavnytstvo Ruta]. [In
Ukrainian]. URL:
https://bit.ly/3eRB8eh
Pradid, Yu. F. (2006). From observations on
dialect phraseology (based on the material of
Boyki's sayings) [Iz sposterezhen nad
dialektnoiu frazeolohiieiu (na materiali
boikivskykh hovirok)]. In the field of
linguistics and law [U tsaryni linhvistyky i
prava.]. Simferopol, p. 21–24. [In Ukrainian].
URL:
https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01002940903
Rudnyc'kyj, J. B. (1962–1982). An Etymological
Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language: Vol. I
(А-Ґ), (1962–1972). Winnipeg Vol. II (Д-Ь),
(1982). Ottawa: Ukrainain Mohylo-
Mazepian Academy of Sciences. URL:.
https://archive.org/details/rudnycky_slovnyk
_tom1.cropped.ocr,
https://archive.org/details/rudnycky_slovnyk
_tom2.cropped.ocr
Trubachev, О. N. (Ed.). (1974–1987).
Etymological Dictionary of Slavic
Languages: Proto-Slavic Lexical Fund
[Etimologicheskij slovar' slavyanskih
yazykov: Praslavyanskij leksicheskij fond].
Moscow: Science [Nauka]. Vol. 1 (A—
*besědьlivъ) (1974); vol. 2 (*bez—*bratrъ)
(1975); vol. 14 (*labati—*lěteplъjь) (1987).
[In Russian]. URL:
https://etymolog.ruslang.ru/index.php?act=e
ssja
Vaan, M., de (2008). Etymological Dictionary of
Latin and the other Italic Languages. Boston:
Leiden.
Verkhratsky, I. (1902). About the speech of the
Galician Lemkоs [Pro hovir halytskykh
lemkiv]. Lviv: National Academy of
Sciences. [In Ukrainian]. URL: http://irbis-
nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-
bin/ua/elib.exe?Z21ID=&I21DBN=UKRLI
B&P21DBN=UKRLIB&S21STN=1&S21R
EF=10&S21FMT=online_book&C21COM=
S&S21CNR=20&S21P01=0&S21P02=0&S
21P03=FF=&S21STR=00004689
Vinereanu, M. (2008). Etymological dictionary
of the Romanian language based on Indo-
European studies. [Dicţionar etimologic al
limbii române pe baza cercetărilor de indo-
europenistica]. Bucharest [Bucureşti]. [In
Romanian].
Volume 11 - Issue 56
/ August 2022
37
https://www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Vișovan, Ș. (2001). Romanian-Ukrainian
interference in the toponymy of Maramureș.
[Interferențe româno-ucrainene în toponimia
Maramureșului]. Umbria Publishing House,
Baia Mare. [Editura Umbria, Baia Mare]. [In
Romanian].
Vrabie, E. (1991). New and revised romanian
etymologies. University Park, Pa, Vol. 31
(3–4), p. 153-162. URL:
https://idiscover.lib.cam.ac.uk/permalink/f/1
kas1sp/TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85
554322
Vrabie, E. (1967). The influence of the
Romanian language on the Ukrainian
language [Influenza limbii romane asupra
limbii ucrainene]. Romanoslavica, XIV,
Bucharest [Romanoslavica, XIV, Bucureşti],
p. 183–184. [In Romanian].
Walde, А. (1906). Latin Etymological Dictionary
[Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch].
1st edition [1 Auflage]. Heidelberg: Winter.
[In German].