Le marquage differentiel de l'objet en nashta et en pomaque (slave, Grèce)

Bilingual speech and language ecology in Greek Thrace: Romani and Pomak in contact with Turkish

“…For example, similarly to other peripheral Balkan Slavic dialects, it has preserved, to a certain extent, its case systemdistinguishing between the nominative, the dative-genitive, and the accusative, the latter being subject to differential marking related to humanness (see Adamou 2010). Compared to the most closely related South Slavic languages, Pomak1 shows some interesting features.…”

Temporal uses of definite articles and demonstratives in Pomak (Slavic, Greece)

“…-em), and the accusative (sg. -a), the latter also being subject to differential marking related to humanness for a number of masculine nouns and, remarkably for Slavic, for some feminine ones as well (Adamou, 2009). In contrast, the closely related Standard Bulgarian and Standard Macedonian stand out among Slavic languages for using a preposition based analytical system to express those functions.…”

The Contact Hypothesis Revised: DOM in the South Slavic Periphery

“…However, the contact with Aromanian9 has not been fully explored nor recognized as an external motivating factor. Some researches challenge this view (Asenova and Aleksova, 2008;Adamou, 2009), while some do not rank contact as a decisive factor (Topolinjska, 1995). Doubts in contact hypothesis are substantiated by the fact that dom is absent in some Macedonian dialects (for instance Bitola or Kruševo) in spite of lengthy and close contact between Macedonian and Aromanian population in these regions.…”

“…Doubts in contact hypothesis are substantiated by the fact that dom is absent in some Macedonian dialects (for instance Bitola or Kruševo) in spite of lengthy and close contact between Macedonian and Aromanian population in these regions. The reverse scenario is also true: in the second half of the 19th century dom was widespread in the southernmost dialect near Langada Lake (north and north-east of Thessaloniki, Greece) even though no Aromanian presence was documented in that area (Adamou, 2009).…”

“…The generalization of the dative pattern modeled after the Greek oblique pattern should be qualified as replication Kuteva, 2005, 2006),45 or construction-oriented pattern-replication (Matras and Sakel, 2007: 843;Matras, 2009: 146), rather than syntactic borrowing (Harris and Campbell, 1995)46 because only the pattern was copied and na was subsequently decategorized via grammaticalization. Although Adamou (2009) maintains that Aromanian presence is not documented in the wider area of Liti (former Aivati),47 certain Aromanian influence in the "narrow innovation region" north of Thessaloniki cannot be totally dismissed. For instance, Aromanians (Vlachs) visiting Ajvati village where "našta variety" was spoken (ibid.)…”