Penultimate draft of the article published in: Балканско езикознание / Linguistique
Balkanique 2012, vol. 51, № 2-3, рр. 157-217.
Languages in Contact, Cultures in Conflict: The place of Ottoman
heritage in the Bulgarian language and culture
Maxim Stamenov
Institute for Bulgarian Language “Prof. Lyubomir Andreychin”
1.
Introduction: The challenge of Turkish loans
In 1894 the classical Bulgarian writer Aleko Konstantinov wrote in one of the short stories
from which consists his famous book Bai Ganyo the following:*
Никакви действия и отношения нямаха смисъл за Бодкова [български студент в
Прага] – тъй се казваше той, – ако от тях не произтичаше нещо кьораво, някой
келепир. (Дали има в европейските езици думи, съответствующи на тия, в това
им значение?) (Konstantinov 2005: 57).
No actions or relationships made sense for Bodkov – that was his name – unless they
resulted in some unearned profit, something for nothing, what we call in Bulgarian
kyoravo or kelepir. (Are there any expressions in the European languages that can
express the true meaning of these words?)28 [28 The words kelepir and kyoravo both
entered Bulgarian from Turkish and have the sense of the English “windfall”, “free
lunch”, “pork barrel”, “boondoggle”, or “undeserved riches.” In modern Turkish
kelepir means “cheap bargain”, while the adverb kyoravo is derived from Turkish kör
(blind).”] (Konstantinov 2010: 57).
The appearance of two Turkish loan words in the citation and the claim that they are
effectively impossible to translate into European languages may be considered a coincidence.
Their peculiar meaning is signaled by the translators into English by a deviation from the
original text in introducing them, as well as with a note that interprets the scope of their
meaning, as well as pointing out that they are loans from Turkish. What remains undisclosed
and cannot be included in any note is certain generalized effect that became for the first time
associated with the use of Turkisms in Bulgarian during the time Aleko Konstantinov wrote
his stories about Bai Ganyo and remained in Bulgarian ever since as the most remarkable
feature of the way they are put to use in the Bulgarian language. It is this special „connotation‟
that makes them hard if at all possible to translate, on the one hand. On the other hand, no
explanation is available in which sense and why it became attached in such sticky and
notorious way to the outcome of the five centuries language contacts between Bulgarian and
Ottoman Turkish language while this did not happen, e.g., to loans from Greek. The present
article will try to provide answers to these questions in dealing with the set of Turkish loan
words in a systematic way and distinguishing and discussing a subset of them that are a
problem to translate into a foreign language because they code in their meaning components
that appear culture-specific for Bulgarian language and culture in reacting to the centurieslong impact of Ottoman language and culture.
The special place of Turkisms in Bulgarian is not only to be detected during the
attempts faithfully to translate them into foreign languages; it is also, as a rule, hard to find
passing synonyms to them in the Bulgarian language itself. It is first and foremost for this
reason, it seems, that some of them remain alive and kicking long time after Bulgaria attained
independence from the Ottoman empire and after the way of life in Bulgaria changed so much
during the last 135 years. Even more to the point, some of these “colorful” and “picturesque”
Turkisms underwent lately (again) a renaissance as a way of expression of certain aspects of
the „democratization‟ that took place in the Bulgarian society after 1989:
Новият живот донесе „адидаски”, „кукла” и „дърво” (навити на руло хартийки,
имитиращи банкноти), „парфюмче” (начеваща проститутка, която се труди за
дребни подаръци) и т. н. Все пак Ориентът присъства силно в родния жаргон. За
придобивки като балък, гьотферен, калтак, манаф, пич, балдър, гювеч,
афиф, ташак трудно ще се намерят заместители (БНК; 24 часа, вестници, 2001–
2010).
The new way of life [after 1989] brought with itself words like adidaski, kukla and
durvo (small roll-ons from sheets of paper that imitate a roll-on of banknotes),
parfyumche (an entry prostitute that offers her services for small presents), etc. The
Oriental remains though strongly represented in our domestic jargon. For acquisitions
like балък, гьотферен, калтак, манаф, пич, балдър, гювеч, афиф, ташак it will
be hard to find substitutes [in Bulgarian] (newspaper 24 часа; transl. mine: M. S.).
As far as the possibility to understand the nature of the meaning implied by the
Turkisms still in active use for very advanced students of Bulgarian language is concerned,
the most instructive seem examples that appear as if commonsense, nothing special in terms
of their content. Thus the Dictionary of Turkisms in Bulgarian (GHS 2002) provides us with
the following interpretation of one of the words mentioned in the citation above:
Балдър dial. Calf of the leg. Дебелата част на крака между коляното и ходилото; прасец.
From the definitions in English and Bulgarian it remains unclear why it became included not
as dialectal but as jargon one in the list of unforgettable Turkisms in the citation from the
newspaper 24 chasa. In contemporary Bulgarian this word, as a matter of fact, is never used
as a straight reference-oriented “calf of the leg”. It is considered vernacular and vulgar, while
it is not obvious why that should be the case, because otherwise the sexual connotation in
Bulgarian is related to бедро “thigh”, but not to прасец “calf of the leg” (if native Bulgarian
words are used). Thus, the sexual allusion goes with дългo бедрo “lit. long thigh; coll. (girl or
woman with) long legs”.
And what to say about a collocation of this word with another Turkish loan, e.g. as in
балдърите на балдъзата? Балдъза means „sister-in-law (one‟s wife‟s sister); сестра на
съпругата по отношение на мъжа“ (GHS 2002; please note that this word is registered as
nominally literary, but not jargon, argot or colloquial); thus, the translation of the whole
phrase should be along the lines of “calfs of the legs of one‟s sister-in-law”. The latter
expression, if translated back in Bulgarian however, would amount to прасците на краката
на сестрата на съпругата, but not to the original балдърите на балдъзата. The English
translation and the Bulgarian backward translation add on descriptive meaning word after
word in the direction of loss of sense of the piling up expression while the original phrase
conveys not only the sense of vulgarity (originally associated with балдър), but also of
commonness in the context of family relationships. In addition, the two Turkisms in it rhyme
with each other, thus contributing to the further aggravation of the insinuated meaning. To the
Bulgarian ear it sounds and means really ugly and for no obvious reason whatsoever, because
we find nothing suspicious if we check out what the two loan words dealing with aspects of
body image and family relationships respectively are supposed to mean in the cited most
comprehensive dictionary of the Turkish loans available (GHS 2002).
As we can ascertain, we may face the impossibility to deal with Turkisms in Bulgarian
in three different senses (as we will see from the discussion below, this is true first and
foremost for loans that refer to humans and their way of life):
when we make an attempt to translate them into a foreign language;
when we try to explain their meaning with the means of synonymous expressions and
paraphrases in the Bulgarian language itself; and
when we interpret them according to the standard lexicological and lexicographic
practices in describing the meaning of the words and expressions in monolingual and
bilingual dictionaries.
In order to face the challenge of translating and interpreting Turkish loans we have to perform
the following tasks:
1. To locate in appropriate way(s) the subset of Turkisms that look hard to translate and
are thus unlike other, e.g., чиния “plate” or лале “tulip”, that are unproblematic from
this point of view;
2. To identify the nature of meaning components that are difficult or impossible to
translate unless special explanatory notes are added on each occasion of their use, as
e.g., for келепир and кьораво above;
3. To describe the character of meaning involved not only in terms of the semantic
structure of the individual words, but also in terms of the structure of thematic and/or
semantic groups of loans that cluster together, as well as the peculiarities of their way of
use;
4. To consider what is culture-specific and what is universal in the meaning that is implied
by the loans from Turkish and what they can tell us about the potential of language
contacts to represent the outcomes of cross-cultural interaction.
Only after carrying out all these tasks we may eventually reach the position to answer the
main question we are interested in – what makes the Turkish loans so “colorful” in such a
peculiar way? – because the residually inexpressible in each individual case will acquire
shape and form when we put together majority or all of the words of the special type we are
concerned with and analyze them in a systematic way. As far as the comparison with the
possibilities to translate and/or interpret such words comes into question, I will use as lingua
franca not only English in order to avoid the possible accusation of Anglocentrism (for
discussion cf. Wierzbicka 1999), but also into German and Russian. Thus, in tracing the fate
of the Ottoman loans in the Bulgarian language and in order to render them in other languages
we have to take into account their status:
a) at the time they were introduced into Bulgarian when we expect them to be closest in
meaning to their etymons in the Ottoman Turkish (this is taken care of in a systematic
way in GHS 2002, including identification of these etymons when they are not to be
found anymore in modern Turkish);
b) according to the possibilities to present the meaning of the Turkish etymons (as far as
they are available in contemporary Turkish) in the bilingual Turkish-English, TurkishGerman and Turkish-Russian dictionaries;
c) according to the possibilities to render the meaning of the Turkish loans in bilingual
Bulgarian-English, Bulgarian-German and Bulgarian-Russian dictionaries;
d) in the contemporary Bulgarian as registered in different dictionaries of the Bulgarian
language (not only the literary and colloquial language, but also in jargon, slang and
argot);
e) according to the way of usage we find in the literature, media, colloquial and vernacular
speech in the history of the Bulgarian language during the last one and a half centuries.
On a full scale this program of comparisons is carried out in Stamenov (2011) for 59
loans from Turkish distributed into 14 semantic groups. Here only several illustrative
examples of the application of this strategy will be presented in an abridged form. By closing
the circle of the culture-specific between the language-donor, language-receiver and the
languages that serve the function of lingua franca for checking out the degree of
(in)commensurability between them we expect to find out the ratio between universal and
culturally specific in rendering the referential, cognitive and emotive-attitudinal components
of meaning and way of use of the Turkisms in Bulgarian. In the present article this way of
analysis will be carried out in an abridged form for бабаит(ин).
2.
Turkisms accumulated in Bulgarian for almost five centuries but there is no
single loan that entered after 1878
In approaching the problem about the nature of the impact of the Turkish language and culture
on the Bulgarian language and culture the first and the gravest mistake would be to identify
“Turkish” in general and the “Turkisms” (loans from Turkish) with Turkish language known
today as the national language of the Republic of Turkey. There is no single loan about which
it is proven that it was borrowed after Bulgaria achieved independence from the Ottoman
empire in 1878 (in the meantime Bulgaria and Greece were and after 1913 remain the only
neighbors of Turkey in Europe and, correspondingly, have theoretically the best chances to
stay in touch with the former ruler). This fact should speak for itself as far as the trends in
language contact and cultural exchange are at stake.
The circumstance that after 1878 there is no proven example of a loan word from
Turkish entering Bulgarian language and becoming widely accepted in usage is, as a matter of
fact, the most convincing indicator about the nature of the relationship between Bulgarian and
Ottoman language and culture. This is the case even if Ottoman empire and after 1923 Turkey
remained a neighbor of Bulgaria and in Bulgaria itself there was and is a Turkish minority of
about 8-9% of the total population while before Liberation took place at least 7,500 loans
from it entered Bulgarian as a result of the prolonged language and culture contact for the
previous about 500 years (cf. GHS 2002).
Friedman (1996: 139) points out about Macedonian literary norm that in it we have
Turkish loans that may have entered it after Macedonia (as a geographic region) attained
independence from the Ottoman empire after the Balkan war. The example of a Turkism
“with a new source” he offers is meclis/medžlis “parliament”. It seems quite logical that to be
the case because we associate this word with modern democracies and in Turkey it became
established firmly as an institution after 1923. The possibility for this word to have entered
Bulgarian before 1878 seems however also possible, because the first very short-lived attempt
to introduce this institution in the Ottoman context was made in 1876. Second, even if we
assume that it has entered later on, it adds a specialized sense to a generally known at that
time Turkish loan that means “council”. And finally third, the word меджлис today should be
considered not as a loan from Turkish, but as an internationalism, as it is in use in present-day
Bulgarian for national assemblies not only of the Ottoman empire and/or Turkey, but also for
parliamentary institutions in other countries of the Muslim world.
Even if we disregard the arguments provided above and/or find direct evidence to the
contrary, we will come to the conclusion that during the last 135 years we have one word in
one of its senses that entered from Turkish into Bulgarian. This fact was never acknowledged
explicitly thus far in terms of what it is supposed to mean. It shows the radicalness of the
refusal to continue to maintain language and cultural relationships with the former ruler. That
the direct impact of the Turkish language and Ottoman culture on the Bulgarian one has
abruptly seized a long time ago does not however mean, that the results of centuries-long
influence accumulated at the time of achieving independence did not continue to play a role in
the language and in the culture of newly reestablished Bulgaria. Some aspects of this impact
still can be detected, one way or another, up to the present day.
The revival of cultural contacts with Turkey during the last 20 years has no clearcut
consequences up to the date, at least as far as language use is concerned, but if we register
such in the near future it may assume especially striking turn if the neo-Ottomanism (Yeni
Osmanlıcılık) gains wider support in the contemporary Turkish society as the country again
aspires for dominion in the region, this time on the basis of its fast economic development.
That remains to be seen.
3.
Scope of penetration and thematic distribution of the Ottoman Turkish loans in
the history of the Bulgarian language
Turkish loans accumulated in the Bulgarian language due to centuries-long language contacts,
starting with the fall of the Second Bulgarian kingdom under the dominion of the Ottoman
empire in 1396. The highest level of this impact was achieved about 1825-1850 (cf. Cholakov
1859: 735; Mirchev 1952: 121; Grannes 1996b: 5), when the first attempts began to restrict it
and the movement was initiated that had as its objective counteraction to the century-long
trend of introducing loans from Ottoman Turkish.
The systematic analysis of the nature of this impact is much more interesting and
nontrivial than it might look at first sight. First of all, it should be noted that the degree of
discrepancy between the level of penetration of lexical borrowing from Turkish into
Bulgarian was incomparable to that at other levels of language structure. The loans as far as
the core levels of linguistic structure are concerned, such as phonology, morphology and
syntax, are rather marginal (cf. Grannes 1996b; Asenova 2002; Tomić 2004), while the
penetration of lexical loans and phraseology instead was quite impressive. The most
comprehensive historical dictionary of the Ottoman Turkish loans in Bulgarian during XIXXX centuries (GHS 2002) contains 7427 headwords. It is thus comparable to the dictionary of
these loans in Serbocroatian where we have 8742 words with 6878 registered meanings
(Škaljić 1966). But this gross numerical compatibility requires a whole set of explanatory
qualifications.
7427 listed headwords may look like hard data one has to accept at face value. The
point can be made that in reality there were even more of them, having in mind the
possibilities to include additional lexical material from sources not taken into account during
the preparation of GHS (2002). But the compilers of this dictionary made a big concession in
including into the dictionary and the corresponding wordcount the derivative words with the
fully productive up to the present day in the Bulgarian language Turkish suffixes -джия, -лия
and -лък and their variants. While it may make sense to include derivative words constructed
according to a productive rule if the main audience envisaged are users that do not know well
Bulgarian (e.g., specialists in the Balkan, Turkish and Turkic studies), it is questionable as far
as the standard lexicographic practices on the subject are concerned and thus potentially
misleading from the point of view of the by default assumptions what is supposed to be
counted as a headword and, correspondingly, what the registered numerical value is supposed
to mean. Furthermore, the great majority of these words, even if generated by a productive
rule currently are archaic. All this must be taken into account, because they pile up to more
than 2050 entries (that can be calculated using the reverse-alphabetical word list in the
dictionary in question) and thus constitute about 18,1% of all the Turkisms in this dictionary
(7427 headwords + 3917 variants = 11344). If we do not take them into account, which is the
standard practice, the set of registered Turkish loans will drop down significantly.
A second point that makes problematic the comparison of the “similar” distribution of
the Turkisms in Bulgarian and Serbocroatian is acknowledged in the review of GHS (2002)
by Friedman (2003). In juxtaposing the results of the comparison of the Turkish etymons with
their Bulgarian and Serbocroatian equivalents that are provided in GHS (2002: 305-528), he
points out that no less than one third and up to a half of the loans in the two languages do not
overlap with each other (Friedman 2003, 147). This scale of deviation should be taken into
account in several additional ways. First, unlike 1966, there is no more Serbocroatian, but
Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin. Under the circumstances, it becomes an open
question how to distribute the loans listed in Škaljić (1966) between them before comparing
with Bulgarian. The same problem we may encounter if we consider the degrees of
interdialectal variation in the penetration of Turkish loans in the Bulgarian language itself.
The compilation of a list of about 7500 headwords represents the cumulative outcome of
searching through materials and dictionaries available for a certain historical period during the
development of the Bulgarian language, its substandards and territorial dialects. This does not
mean that at any time there was a speaker of Bulgarian who, because he was a Bulgarian and
spoke the language as a native speaker, knew all of them. In other words, the list of lexical
entries in GHS (2002) cannot be compared to a set of words one can find in a dictionary of
contemporary Bulgarian, say BTR (1994). There was also no dialect during the history of the
Bulgarian language where we could find all the words of this same list of 7500 entries; we
would have to apply again a scaling of the type from one third to one half, in certain cases
even lower. This scaling thus provides us with an orientation and measure of the „ecological
validity‟ of dictionaries that result from the gross count of the historical impact of Turkish
from the resources available from its whole language territory during the last two centuries.
If we turn to the problem of finding out a feasible classification of the Turkisms
according to the sphere of their penetration and use in Bulgarian, the first attempt to deal with
this question in a systematic way belongs to prof. Benyo Tsonev (1863–1926) and reflects the
situation and distribution of the loans during the first two decades of the XX century
(although it was published significantly later; Tsonev 1934). In the set of the loans collected
by this author we find about 2000 words and expressions. Many of them were used at that
time according to their primary denotation (that was shared with Turkish) and neutrally.
Below the thematic groups are listed with a selection of examples spelled according to the
original orthography of Tsonev:
І.
ІІ.
ІІІ.
Nature, minerals, plants, animals: ален, бисер, гарга, кайсия, катран, кюспе,
лале, мискет, памук, патладжан, спанак, сусам, тебешир, тютюн, чакъл, etc.
Household, household belongings, family: бостан, баджанак, джезве, казан,
чиния, чаршаф, тенджера, сопа, сандък, кутия, килим, лула, саксия, дюшек,
калъф, etc.
Crafts, trade, money, measures, weights: боза, вересия, занаятчия, хамалин,
чифликчия, etc.
ІV.
Building constructions and their components: кубе, махала, таван, тухла, чардак,
etc.
V.
Clothing, decorations et al.: атлаз, гьон, каишка, калпак, копче, таке, халат,
чорап, шал, яка, etc.
VІ.
Meals, drinks, taste: мая, кадаиф, бюрек, булгур, тарама, хайвер, шкембе,
суджук, пастърма, създърма, яхния, чорба, кавърма, кайма, кюфте, капама
(задушено), геврек; бут; зехтин; кайма; каймак; мезе; ракия; туршия перс.;
юфка; мусака, чеверме (тур. „вретено” – агне, печено на шиш); кебап ар.,
шиш-кебап; сарма; качамак; пача (перс. „краче”); пелте; бюрек; баклава;
локум ар.; шекер ар.; леблебии; курабие; халва ар.; сютлиаш (млечница);
каймак; айран; боза; ошав; таратор; шуруп (сироп); шербет ир.; кафе (ар.
кааве); тютюн; емфие; бахар; джинджифил; кимион; фурма, мескет; фъстък
ар.; зарзават перс.; патладжан перс., etc.
VІІ. Games, music, entertainment: дайре; комар; кючек; маане (мелодия); тесте;
чалгия (свирня); кавал; джюмбюш (перс. „движение”); дандания (ар. daldana);
сеир; мухабет (ар. „разговор”); донанма („украшение”, осветление); комар;
шахмат (перс. „цар мъртъв”); кошия (препускане), etc.
VІІІ. Body, illnesses and medicines: далак; джудже (перс. „пиле”); къна (ар. Lawsonia
spinosa?); балсам ар.; мехлем ар. (ар. мехрем – „пластир”); кьосе; махмурлук;
маясъл; келав; пелтек (заеклив); хашиш (ар. „опойка”); бут, etc.
ІХ.
Personality, society, belief system, nationality: ага; ефенди; хамал, хамалък;
ерген; бекярин ар.; ислям (ар. „спасителен”); курбан ар.; рамазан ар.; байрам
перс.; сюнет ар.; тълъсъм (ар. „въплътен дух”); талисман (ар. таинствено);
муска; дервиш перс.: der (врата) + viş- (лежи) = просяк; мюфтия ар.; хаджия
ар., хаджилък, etc.
Х.
Management, jurisprudence: падишах перс.; султан ар.; везир ар.; паша тур.перс.; кадия ар.; ятак (леговище, укривател); рушвет ар.; шериат (ар. „свещен
закон”); хазна ар.; джелатин ар.; бей, etc.
ХІ.
Military terminology: барут; куршум; ятаган; сачми; кубур; гюле; левент (перс.
„юнак”), etc.
ХІІ. Nicknames (reproachful) [by definition there are no words in this group that are used
in a neutral way].
ХІІІ. Miscellaneous meanings: чалвам се, чаткам, челик, басирам се, вайкам се,
инатя се, etc.
1.
Nouns
2.
Adjectives
3.
Verbs
4.
Invariable words and interjections (Tsonev 1934: 177–191).
Some of the words under the rubric “XIII. Miscellaneous meanings” hardly could have been
considered literary and neutral even at the beginning of XX century. This is especially the
case for those of them that go under the subheading “Invariable words and interjections”, e.g.,
like аланкоолу, аджеба, ама, аман, ачик, барабар, баш, гиди, гьос-гьоре, джанъм,
сакън, санким, хасъл, чунки, чунким, язък, etc. Their proper treatment still waits for
dedicated scholars ready to deal with them in a qualified way and would amount to a large
monograph discussing them in detail with their interrelated semantic specificity and the
peculiar ways of use. It should be pointed out to the credit of Tsonev that he acknowledged
very early on, in a certain way, their special status in his taxonomy even if the set in XIII
above looks quite heterogeneous from the point of view of standard part of speech attribution
and possible functions during communication.
It is also worth while to acknowledge that Tsonev distinguished from all other types of
loans the ones he identified quite up to the point as “XII. Nicknames (reproachful)”. From this
circumstance we can ascertain that the processes of pejorativization of Turkisms were well
under way already at the time he compiled his taxonomy:
ХІІ.
Nicknames (reproachful): хаймана; хайта; дангалак (лапни-шаран); дембел
перс., -лик, -хане; гевшек; гамсъзар (безгрижен); хайлазин; кюлхане (перс.
„пепелище” – безделник); калпазанин, перс.; ашлак (голтак); зюрт (беден);
кутсуз (злосретен); пис (мръсен) = мурдар, перс.; мискин ар. (мръсен);
тамахкяр (перс.-ар. „лаком” – скъперник); никезин ар. (скъперник) = пинтия;
къскатия (завидник, скъперник); мухтанджия (перс. муфт „даром”); бекрия;
сархош перс.; яланджия; шийретин (ар. „лукав”); шейтан ар.; джанабет ар.;
джансъз (бездушен); джаналаджия (душевадец); харсъзин ар. (крадец);
харамия ар. (разбойник); чомагаш перс.-тур.; кьопоолу (кучи син); арсъз
(безсрамник); имансъз (безверник); едепсиз ар.-тур. (безсрамник); маскара ар.
(„подигравка”); мерет-ски ар. (пусти, проклет); тепегьоз (дебелоок) -лук;
резил ар. (позорен) -лик; налет ар. (проклет, опак човек); ханзър ар. (свиня);
кавур, гявур ар.; урсуз (злочест, проклет); делишме (блъснат); будала; ахмак
ар.; алчак (долен, подъл); аджамия; абдал ар.; диване (перс. „глупак”); серсем
(перс. „разсеян, глупав”); шапшал (глупак); шашкън (слисан); делия,
деликанлия (тур. „луда кръв”); зевзек (гаврило); сойтара (смехотворец);
мюзевир-ин ар.; фитне (ар. „подстрекател, подкокоросник”); гевезе
(бръщолевец); кепазе (перс. „опозорен”); домбазин (перс. „понтон” – дебелак);
темерут (ар. „упорит”); чапрашин „сплетен” (неразбран); горгор-башия;
мараза и рагаза (свадливец); джангаза (заядливец); курулма (който се
„курдисва” – заема поза); пирпирия (ар. фирфири – „багрен, хубав”); фудул ар.
(горделив); фарфара (хвалипръцко); килистир (тур. „изхабен”); кранта
(мършалив); земпаре от перс. зен „жена” и паре „поклонник”; куламбара перс.
кулам „момче” и паре “обожавам”; калтабанин перс. (сводник); пушт (перс.
„развратно момче”); пич (изрод, копиле); пиргиш перс. пир „старец” и кеш
(нося) – изживял; пезевенк перс.; бербант-ин перс. (мръснодумец); чапкънин;
уварда (развратник); брантия вм. брагантия „изоставено” (презряна жена);
гивендия (перс. „говорлив” – развалена жена); джадия перс. „вещица”;
уроспия перс. = кахпия ар., отдето и кахпуолу (Tsonev 1934: 187-188).
From the markers of origin of the “reproachful nicknames” it becomes evident that a
significant part of them is not originally Turkish, but loans in it from Arabic and Persian (with
the same or aggravated meaning). Thus we can ascertain that the strategy of borrowing words
for negatively evaluated others is by no means something that we can register in the Bulgarian
language only. What makes the difference though, as we will see, is the scope and the degree
of pejorativization in question, which seems much stronger in Bulgarian than any other
European language. One could expect parallel trends in the pejorativization of Turkisms in
Greek because of the comparable historical circumstances, but this still remains to be proven
by empirical research.
It is interesting to acknowledge that according to the contemporary way of use certain
words that Tsonev did not classify as “reproachful nicknames” acquired in the meantime such
a status either literally or, much more frequently, in a figurative way:
І.
Nature, minerals, plants, animals: батакчия; кютюк (пън, корен); бахча (перс.
багче – градина); чукундур; леш (ар. liasи – труп, мърша); мекере (ар. mekjari –
товарно животно); мелез (ар. смесен); катър; шебек; бурсук (язовец); керкенез
(сокол); йордек, юрдечка (патица); гарга.
ІІ.
Household, household belongings, family: боклук; келеме (угар, изоставено лозе);
бичме (бичени греди), бича (режа с трион); калтак (просто седло); пачавра;
бардак; софра ар.; дингил (ос; means also „дангалак”, that comes from дингилахмак).
ІІІ.
Crafts, trade, money, measures, weights: джамбаз(ин), зарзаватчия, касапин;
пехливанин перс.; еснаф; чешит; терк (кройка); пишман перс., -лък, -ня се;
марда; мюхлюзин; ортак.
VІ.
Meals, drinks, taste: буламач, шкембе, зарзават.
VІІ. Games, music, entertainment: кефлия (ар. кеф или кейф); юрган пехливан (вм.
урган-); гьоз-бояджия.
VІІІ. Body, illnesses and medicines: кел, келав, келчо, келеш; кир -лив; сакат ар. лък; чолак (без ръка); топал (куц); гуджук (късопав); бъдък (късокрак);
къмбур (гърбица); кьорав, кьорчо; янгоз; шишик (кривоглед); кьосе, кьосав;
пелтек (заеклив) = кеке и кекеве; солак (левичар); джудже (перс. “пиле”);
тумбаз и думбаз (дебел човек); шишман (тур. şiş “подут”), шишкав, шишко.
ІХ.
Personality, society, belief system, nationality: деребей (тур.-перс. derre – бич);
делибашия; даалия (горец); кеседжия (разбойник); янкеседжия (пунгашин);
катил-ин ар. (убиец); душман-ин перс.; кавгаджия; хатърджия, хатърсъз;
дьонме (отметник); читак (едно турско племе); торлак (тур., “неупражнен”);
кърджалии; чифут-ин (перс. ğuhud); манафи (малоазийски турци).
Х.
Management, jurisprudence: пазвант-ин перс.; бей; паракенде перс.?.
ХІ.
Military terminology: иничери („нова войска”); башибозук; гавазин (ар.
„стрелец”).
ХІІІ. Miscellaneous meanings (nouns, adjectives, verbs, invariable words and interjections):
тафра (гордост); инат ар.; шупе, ар., шупелия; дубара перс. (измама); уйдурма
(нагласа, измама); майтап (перс. „месечина” – подигравка); бабаджан, бабаитин, балабан (едър, висок); сербезлик (тур.-перс. „свобода” – дързост);
махмурлия (от ар. махмур – Katzenjammer); бетер (перс. „по-грозен”); калпав
(ар.-перс. „променен” – неистински); сербез (тур.-перс. „свободен, дързък”);
фукара (ар. сиромах) -лък; заваллия тур.-ар. („западнал” – жалък); кибар ар.
(големлив); ачигьоз ар. (хитър); кадърен (ар. “силен” – способен); чакър
кефлия (пийнал); айлак (празен, без работа); курдисвам, курдисвам се;
шашардисвам; къздисвам (пламвам); куртулисвам се; бастисвам; бактисвам
(отчайвам се); кандърдисвам (убеждавам); саштисвам, сащисвам се (слисвам
се); уйдисвам, уйдурдисвам (нагласявам); назлъндисвам се перс.-тур.
(церемоня се); кандисвам (убеждавам се, скланям); заборчлявам; терсене;
янлъш; баш; гиди (тур. безсрамник) (Tsonev 1934: 177-191).
This list of words shows us that during the last century the trend toward generalization of the
pejorative meaning associated with Turkish loans became more and more pronounced, but did
not just reproduce the status quo in language use from before 100 years. In other words, the
processes of pejorativization went along the lines of persisting and aggravating negative
attitudes toward Turkisms in the Bulgarian society, independently of all the radical changes it
underwent in the meantime in different ways. The set of pejoratives available today represents
thus the outcome of a century-long accumulation of the results of language in use in a certain
direction that re-asserted itself again and again.
From the taxonomy of Tsonev it becomes also evident which thematic groups of
Turkisms tended to remain neutral and in use for a prolonged time – e.g., the ones related to
the patterns of everyday life – names of artifacts from nature, minerals, plants, and animals,
those in use in the household and family, household belongings, some related to meals,
drinks, taste, building constructions and their components, clothing and decorations. Others
became rather fast archaic, as it was the case with the majority of words that once belonged to
the rubrics of social life, management, jurisprudence or military terminology. The tendency,
however, that helped feel the Turkisms “alive and kicking” in the linguistic awareness of
Bulgarians was first and foremost their potential to undergo pejorativization.
The taxonomy of Tsonev while being the first offered in dealing with the distribution
of the Turkish loans in Bulgarian, turned out in retrospect to be the best up to the present day.
All the others proposed by Bulgarian and foreign scholars were either directly dependent on it
or were found less compact as well as informative in the ways of distribution that were
proposed (cf. e.g., Lakova 1972; Schaller 1973; Grannes 1996b).
If we want to classify the Turkisms in the most comprehensive way possible, we
would arrive at the simplest but suggestive taxonomy of a binary type with the criterial
features that help discern in a clearcut way the words belonging to each of them:
“Accepted” in the Bulgarian language:
o do not sound Turkish to the native speaker of Bulgarian;
o have no synonyms in Bulgarian;
o are considered neutral from the point of view of their connotation and find place
in the literary language;
o mostly name concrete objects, like чиния ”plate” or кайсия “apricot”, but also
some abstract ones like шега “joke”.
“Rejected” by the Bulgarian language (pejorative and ambivalent):
o sound Turkish, e.g. чукундур “beetroot; fig. blockhead”, мекере “bootlicker;
skunk, slag”, тюрлюгювеч “meat stew with mixed vegetables; fig. hotch-potch,
jumble”, etc.;
o have synonyms in Bulgarian;
o by default have peculiar connotations and are associated with use in low
colloquial and vernacular language;
o as a rule they name, literally or figuratively, humans, their traits, aspects of their
behavior and interaction.
The ones that are „accepted‟ achieved their status mainly at the expense of not being
associated anymore, explicitly or implicitlyq as having something to do with the Turkish
language and the Ottoman past.
4.
Basic mechanisms of estrangement of Bulgarian from the Ottoman Turkish
language and culture
The development of the Bulgarian language and culture after the achievement of
independence in 1878 was marked by “fast archaization” of big strata of Turkish loans as well
as the correlative “deorientalization” in terms of cultural traits and social practices. Both
terms and their reference were met by mixed emotions if we compare the attitude of the
Bulgarian specialists with that of foreign ones. The trend of “fast archaization” was put into
question by pointing out the existence of (as if) opposite trend for some Turkisms
staunchingly and against all odds not to fall into oblivion during the last 135 years (cf. GHS
2002: vii). The nature and the real outcomes of the correlative cultural “deorientalization”, as
asserted by Bulgarian linguists, also was questioned, explicitly or implicitly (cf. e.g., Grannes
1996c, 134). Under the circumstances it becomes quite appropriate to represent in a
systematic way the main directions of linguistic and cultural estrangement of Bulgarian from
Ottoman Turkish (in Stamenov 2011: 152-193, this trend is discussed in terms of “cultural
dissimulation” as a general trend which finds expression in language, as well as in other
phenomena of social and cultural life in Bulgaria during the last one and a half centuries).
4.1.
The trend toward fast archaization as indicator of the farewell to the Ottoman
heritage
Everybody in the Balkan studies agrees with the claim that in all Balkan states after they
achieved independence from the Ottoman rule appeared a clearcut trend of “fast” or
“accellerated” archaization of the Turkish loans. But here the agreement ends and
disagreements come to the fore. First of all, the concept of archaization of lexis, as a process
of language change is usually interpreted as due to general factors contributing to the way of
functioning of language in any society, while here we have a culture-specific trait that
appeared under special conditions and led to specific outcomes that do not necessarily
constitute a universal of language functioning on a diachronic scale. “Speeded archaization”
requires specific causes and has outcomes on its own that are not to be directly identified with
the causes of archaization of lexis in general, as if the only difference is that the speeded one
is somehow enacted with a faster pace. For this reason the use of the term may be considered
potentially misleading. What we witness is not “speeding” of a certain dynamics that happens
anyway in the life of language, but a process in the corresponding society and culture that can
be described in positive terms on its own – the “speeded archaization” is due to the
accelerated modernization of the Balkan societies in general and of the Bulgarian society in
particular aiming at compensatory Europeanization. This is the effective cause that pushed
aside whole strata of Turkish loans and made them on a short notice obsolete after Bulgaria
achieved independence, especially in such areas as government, politics, social life, ways of
formation and functioning of public opinion, administracy, military terminology, economics
and finances, trade, money, measures, weights, personality, belief systems, nationality as well
as in all the spheres of the high Bulgarian culture. What is special about it is that it is
indicative of the way the intercultural conflict found a solution, as far as one can document it
in the life of language. The true correlation in this case then would be between the speed of
archaization and the acuteness of the conflict that called forth compensatory action (in our
case the compensatory introduction of alternative social practices with the vocabulary
associated with them from the European languages and cultures) in the corresponding society.
Some critics attack the idea of “fast archaization” on the basis that it is not an
exclusive process, that it is, as a matter of fact, only one of the two main tendencies that may
even counteract each other. GHS (2002) uses such a point as their main argument supporting
the significance of Turkisms in Bulgarian up to the present day. They write on the back cover
summary of the book the following:
The nearly five hundred years of Ottoman rule in Bulgaria left many traces in the
language of the Bulgarians. Puristic counteraction during Bulgaria‟s National Revival
period and after Bulgarian independence sought to eliminate Turkisms from the
literary language, but many still remain, especially in colloquial language and the
dialects (GHS 2002)
According to my own calculations (after extensive comparisons of the coverage of Turkisms
in different Bulgarian dictionaries) from the 7427 headwords registered in GHS (2002) today
in use are about 1500, i.e., 20%.1 Does this status quo qualify as “many still remain” is under
the circumstances a matter of opinion. As far as I can judge, it fits on quantitative grounds
incomparably better the qualification of “massive archaization” rather than “many traces still
remain” (the qualitative analysis of the “traces” and why they leave the impression of being
“many” follows below). As far as the role of puristic counteraction in this process is
concerned, I think that it was a driving source when we discuss the development of literary
language during the last 135 years, but by far was not the dominant cause contributing to
“speeded archaization” in general. As I already pointed above, the main factor was the overall
reorientation of the Bulgarian society toward modernization along the European lines. It has
however significantly contributed to imposing the attitude of stigma on the use of Turkisms
that, on its side, supported their comparatively wider infiltration into the low colloquial and
vernacular language.
If we speak about the status of Turkisms in the Bulgarian dialects, it was and remains
much more complicated than just to maintain that in dialects there are many of them (as a
matter of fact, in GHS itself those Turkisms that are marked as coming from dialects are also,
as a rule, archaic). First of all, it is doubtful that at any time in any dialect there were more
Turkisms compared to the set of them compiled from all possible sources in GHS (2002).
Second, in different dialects the degree of penetration of Turkisms was and is subject of wide
variation to a considerable degree due to the status of the bilingual communication in the
corresponding communities of linguistic practice (for a plausible phenomenology of the
bilingualism in question cf. Nikolova 2006). Without a systematic comparative analysis of
several representative dialects, in this respect, the claim that “many of them still remain”
effectively amounts to a general statement that in dialects there were and possibly are
Turkisms that cannot be found any more or never entered the literary and/or colloquial
language.
4.2.
The trend toward acquisition of pejorative and ambivalent meanings by the Turkish
loans
As far as one can ascertain with detailed empirical data, the trend toward pejorativization of
the Turkish loans in Bulgarian is without parallel for loans in any other European language.
As documented in Stamenov (2011) it amounts to a development without a precedent that had
two main aspects:
Some set of loans persisted in being kept in Bulgarian as if contradicting the logic
driving the “fast archaization”; and
This set of words underwent changes of meaning and connotation that were
semantically, pragmatically and attitudinally congruous with each other – namely in the
direction of massive pejorativization.
The compilers of GHS (2002) in the passage cited above are wrong in juxtaposing the
efforts of puristic counteraction to the status quo that some Turkisms can still be found in the
Bulgarian language, especially in the colloquial language (and even more so in the vernacular
language). Here at stake is their use of but, as if the two processes were and are antagonistic
to each other, while they are, as a matter of fact, complementary. The lower became the
cultural status of Turkisms in the literary language due to purist movement and the attitude
toward the Ottoman heritage, more prone they were to be accepted in the vernacular
Bulgarian (in Stamenov 2011 this point is discussed in detail). There is no implied
contradiction whatsoever if we find systematic support for Turkisms in the vernacular
language and this is not evidence that implies failure of purism as a movement. If some
linguistic expressions are denied value or evaluated in a negative way in a certain culture,
they acquire good chances to be accepted in a positive or more positive way in the
counterculture or anticulture (cf. Halliday 1978) of the corresponding society.
The overview of the main groups of pejoratives will help orient the reader about the
nature and the scope of the phenomenon in question. Thus, in Bulgarian up to the present day
there are 195 Turkisms naming humans in terms of their traits, characters, specific patterns of
behavior and way of interaction with each other, etc., as listed alphabetically with their
meanings in Stamenov (2011: 369-382). Of these about 200 nouns and indeclinable adjectives
only two or three can be used neutrally and in literary language. All others are in use in
colloquial and vernacular language and have negative and ambivalent meanings. Some of
them have the status of the most expressive negative superlatives in Bulgarian available for
naming humans. The same in orientation is the count of the Turkish loans-verbs. From 122
verbs listed in Stamenov (2011: 394-409) only a couple can be used in a neutral way. All
other have peculiarities of meaning and connotation that deserve detailed consideration in
each individual case. In Stamenov (2011: 729-744) a systematic discussion is presented of
only one semantic group consisting of three such verbs “for interaction with aforethought” –
кандърдисвам, назлъндисвам се, кандисвам – and the very length of their analysis is
supposed to show what kinds of peculiarities from semantic and pragmatic point of view they
may involve. In addition as separate thematic groups of Turkisms are listed 33 related to body
image from which only two again are neutral; 26 related to sexual behavior (among them the
most brutally vulgar words available in Bulgarian on the subject), 51 related to aspects of
interpersonal and social behavior (on a profane and caricature level), 28 associated with
aspects of human destiny and related to it experiences and habits (again on a debased,
degraded level), 60 having to do with profession, business and trade, etc. (cf. Stamenov 2011:
382-393). Almost all of these 515 words have negative or ambivalent meaning, specific
connotations, are used in colloquial or vernacular language, jargon and slang and help the
pejorativization of the Turkisms to acquire the level of sound symbolism – if a word is
recognized as sounding Turkish, by default it is assumed that it means something bad when
not known (because, e.g., it is archaic) to the present-day speaker of Bulgarian.
And this is still not enough. In addition to pejoratives, if we identify them in a broader
sense as words that have negative and/or ambivalent meanings in denoting humans and their
world, a whole additional set of words that are sometimes quite hard to qualify in terms of the
standard set of parts of speech entered Bulgarian from Turkish as means for carrying out
conversation. These are interjections, particles, adverbs and the like that were and are in use
up to the present day in the most informal registers of interaction, e.g., in old town
vernaculars, argot, jargon, dialects and, in most general terms in the vernacular speech.
During interaction they are used and accepted in a strongly expressive way that is impossible
to convey with their Bulgarian synonyms. Nobody ever tried to present and describe them in a
systematic way up to the present day. The most exhaustive list of them remains the one
offered by Tsonev (1934) under the rubric of Неменливи думи и възклици “Invariable words
and interjections”, from which a representative sample is offered below:
Бадява перс.; кестерме (напреки, на тетик, нащрек); дармадан (разнебитено);
башка; тамам ар.; барабар перс.; заман (винаги); сабахлеим тур.-ар.; чатпат; дибидюс; зорлен; зян перс.; яваш; янлъш; нейсе (как-и-да-е); фарси
перс.; хемен перс. („веднага”); демек (сиреч); белки (може би); белким
(нима); бая ар. (доста); баш (тъкмо); хаир; йок; аслъ ар. (всъщност); коджа,
коджа ми ти; кос-коджа; хич перс.; галиба ар. (като че); барем и барим
перс. (поне); ама ар.; зер (нима, та); санки (да кажем); санким (нима); чунки
тур.-перс. (понеже); чунким (мигар); чак (дори до); хем, хем-хем (ту-ту);
чоджум (чоджугум – „чадо”); джанъм (душо); гиди (тур. безсрамник); язък
(щета, жално); хайде; аферим (перс. „създател” – браво); кола-геле (да ти е
лесно! Помози Бог!); сакън (тур. Варди се! Не бива!); разгеле (тур.-перс.
случайно дойде – тъкмо навреме); машалла ар. (тъй Бог желае); евалла ар.
(ej-vallah „е, сбогом” – благодарим); бош-лаф; джан-джин перс. (няма жива
душа) (Tsonev 1934: 189–191).
The feature they all share is that they are used in low colloquial to rude vernacular speech as
inimitable by other means of expression and evocation. They may be accepted by the
interactants as ways to code emotion and attitude toward the subject under consideration and
the other interlocutors from funny to grotesque, mainly with crude, denigrating, profanizing
flavor. There are certain exceptions, e.g., чоджум „мое дете, чадо” in old dialects or хайде
“go on, come on”, but what are exceptions for if not to prove the validity by default of the
rule.
The discussion and description of this type of loans would require the development of
a new type of pragmatic theory of pejorative use and related to it масал “vernacular funny
story, anecdote, frequently based on falsehood, fabrication, believe-it-or-not” poetics that is
unlike any currently available in the pragmatic theory.2 In other words, the Turkisms that are
used during communication as means of expression and evocation would require for their
proper description a book-length treatment on their own.
If we assume that today we have about 1500 Turkisms in Bulgarian (as catalogued in
the dictionaries of contemporary Bulgarian registering words in general use) and add to them
another hundred from the special ones for pragmatic purposes (as the latter are usually not
included in the dictionaries of contemporary Bulgarian language), we will arrive at a count of
about 1600 words. From them no less than 600 are pejorative and ambivalent, i.e., some 35 to
40%, and in this very time they belong to the ones that are most impressive and expressive in
use. This is a level of pejorativization of loans from a single source language that, as far as I
am informed, is not explicitly documented for any other European language. They are indeed
“many”; as a matter of fact “huge” percent from the Turkisms that remained.
4.3.
The trend toward becoming substandard as a way to reevaluate the cultural value of
the Turkisms in Bulgarian
Hand in hand with the trend toward pejorativization of the Turkish loans went another one –
as long and as far the concepts and realia of the Ottoman heritage were devaluated in the
Bulgarian culture they acquired better chances to find their home in the Bulgarian counterand anticulture. They penetrated and populated the argot, jargon, slang and other substandards
of Bulgarian where they can be found up to the present day, including ones expressing core
subculture-specific concepts. These are the words that mainly contribute to the impression
that many of them “still remain” and even became a source for the “democratization” of the
contemporary Bulgarian when they re-emerged in mass media after the decades of being
banned from public speech during the socialism. This “democratization” was indicative, as a
matter of fact, of the complete collapse of the stratification of the society in terms of norms
and values for a certain period – that of transition from the socialist to free market economy in
the period between 1992 and 2002. This was the time when the Turkisms were revived for
active use and coded aspects of the corresponding aire du temps.
4.4.
The trend toward acquiring the status of rigid negative superlatives
Turkish loan words during their pejorativization tended toward acquiring the status of the
strongest means for expressing negative meaning and attitude toward objects named by them.
This trend can be discerned in comparing their place in relation to their Bulgarian synonyms
(as it will be illustrated below with the ways the concept of face can become expressed in
Bulgarian). In other words, the general trend for pejorativization of the Turkisms found its
strongest way of expression in the formation of sets of words that were found to be the
superlative means for expressing negatively conceptualized content in Bulgarian.
4.5.
No entry policy toward Turkisms after the Liberation took place
As already mentioned above, there is no single word that entered Bulgarian from Turkish after
1878. Even meclis/mejlis/меджлис not in the already available during the Ottoman times
sense of “council, assembly” but with the specialized meaning of “national assembly,
parliament” may have first entered from Turkish into Bulgarian in 1876, i.e., before the
liberation took place, when there was a short-lived attempt by the sultan Adbul Hamid II to
introduce this institution into the Ottoman system of government, e.g., as Meclis-i Mebusan
“Chamber of Deputies; House of Representatives” of a bi-cameral legislature of constitutional
monarchy type. This circumstance – of abrupt blocking after 1878 of any chance to borrow
even a single word from a language from which previously thousands of words entered
Bulgarian – should speak for itself. Nothing – both for better and worse – was found worth
while to import anymore.
5.
Remembering, reconceptualizing and forgetting the past coded with Turkish
loans
What is remembered from the historical past of a certain nation and in what ways is a matter
of many controversial discussions. Opinions vary widely from the claim that history is a
matter of reconstructive fabrication to the one that it is the entelechy of the spirit of the
corresponding culture. The problem becomes especially challenging when we consider
problematic cultural contacts that eventually result in intercultural conflict with its aftermath,
e.g., in the case of the conflict between Bulgarian and Ottoman Turkish culture during their
cohabitation for nearly five centuries. Who is right in presenting the consequences of such a
conflict – Bulgarians or those who identify themselves as the heirs of the Ottoman culture? Is
there any possibility at all to deal with question like this in an objective way but not according
to prejudices pro or contra one of the parties in such a conflict?
In my opinion, one can approach the past of the Bulgarian culture in a way that is not a
projection of one‟s own prejudices on the subject if one studies the fate of the Turkish loan
words in Bulgarian. In them the ways of acceptance and/or rejection of aspects of Ottoman
culture accrued as a result of millions of uses of the words that become the object of analysis
and thus represent the outcome of naturally crystallized meaningfulness, emotion, evaluation
and attitude. The situation, though, is not as clearcut and simple as it may seem from the first
sight because the attitude toward the Ottoman culture becomes evident in such a way first and
foremost for loans that speakers recognize as Turkish in origin, while there are aspects of this
influence that may evade this way of identification, e.g., in the cases where we have linguistic
and cultural calques (as we will discuss below in the case of certain class of proverbs, for
example). There are even more challenging cases when the resulting emotion and attitude are
there, although the contemporary speakers of Bulgarian do not recognize the motivating inner
form of the loan or even identify it mistakenly. All these complications however do not
compromise the general validity of the claim that the history of use of the Turkish loans can
serve the function of a faithful mirror in uncovering the authentic attitude to different aspects
of the Ottoman heritage during the last one and half centuries of the Bulgarian history.
Language itself provides us with the empirical data that present vox populi, vox dei on the
subject.
5.1.
Oriental wisdom – translated means forgotten
The Ottoman influence on the Bulgarian folk culture in the past is well documented and
acknowledged by research in the Bulgarian folklore. It is, for example, solidly ascertained by
the analysis of a set of popular proverbs in Bulgarian, some of them in use up to the present
day. The challenge here lies however in the point that they are in use without the associated
awareness whatsoever that they were once borrowed from Ottoman Turkish. This is the case
because they were translated into Bulgarian and in this garb assume the value of “general
truths” that lose their backward reference to the Oriental lore:
Ножа опря о кокала (Бучак кемие даяндъ) (Slaveykov 2003: 484).
Секи ден не бива Колада или Не е Божик секи ден (Хер гюн байрам олмас) (Slaveykov 2003:
637) [= Всеки ден не е Великден].
Насила хубост не бива (Зорлан гюззелик олмаз) (Slaveykov 2003: 458).
Бели пари за черни дни (Ak akça kara gün içindir) (Ikonomov 1968: 30).
Ако не тече – капе (Акмаса – дамлар) (Ikonomov 1968: 282).
Круша от корена си далеч не пада (Армут кьокунден узак дюшмез) (Ikonomov 1968: 284).
Падналият в морето и на змия се хваща (Денизе дюшен, йълана сьрълър) (Ikonomov 1968: 291).
Вълкът козината си мени, но нрава не (Курт тююню деиштирир, хуюну деиштирмес)
(Ikonomov 1968: 303).
Here the true challenge is to answer the question why they were accepted in Bulgarian
up to the level of experiencing them as belonging to one‟s folk culture, while this did not
happen to another set of them, although they were also translated into Bulgarian, i.e., as a rule
do not include in them words that are recognized as loans from Turkish? If we use the once
borrowed proverbs of this second set today they would look unusual or awkward to a
contemporary Bulgarian:
Малко да ти е работата, спокойна да ти е главата (Ikonomov 1968: 282).
Остави пияния сам да падне (Ikonomov 1968: 287).
Ако огладнееш, не е грях да откраднеш (Ikonomov 1968: 281).
За лудото момиче всеки ден е празник и сватба (Ikonomov 1968, 291).
Кой иска спокойствие в света, трябва да е глух, сляп и ням (Ikonomov 1968: 293).
Богат, който се носи като беден, е луд (Ikonomov 1968: 296).
Който прави добро, зло намира (Ikonomov 1968: 297).
На жената сабя дай, но свобода не давай (Ikonomov 1968: 300).
На сладкия разговор насита няма (Татлъ моабетин дойуму олмаз) (Ikonomov 1968: 312).
Който върви право, да ослепее (Slaveykov 2003: 382).
На девет вълци един пачи крак (Докуз курда, бир фурда) (Slaveykov 2003: 439).
Не прави добро, та да не влезеш в (да не сториш) грях (Slaveykov 2003: 470)
The point is that in receiving proverbs from the Oriental lore the Bulgarian culture was
selective in fitting them into the context. The reasons for that may be different. Some of the
proverbs look too paradoxical, e.g., Който прави добро, зло намира “Who does good, finds
evil” (Ikonomov 1968: 297) or unacceptable Ако огладнееш, не е грях да откраднеш “It is
not a sin to steal, if you are hungry” (Ikonomov 1968: 281). Others express truths that are not
anymore appropriate to assert from the point of view of changes in attitudes and/or political
correctness, as На жената сабя дай, но свобода не давай “Give the lady a sword, but give
her no freedom” (Ikonomov 1968: 300), although one can understand the point in terms of the
male chauvinism implied; others express habits of communication that are not anymore
valued the way they once were, e.g., as На сладкия разговор насита няма “One cannot
become satiated with pleasant conversation/chat” (Ikonomov 1968: 312). The ad hoc looking
relationship between the wolves at the leg of a duck in На девет вълци един пачи крак
(Докуз курда, бир фурда) “One duck‟s leg for nine wolves” finds its justification in the
rhyming of курда and фурда that is to be found in the Turkish original. The loss of the
language-specific form made the meaning of this proverb look arbitrary and thus opaque. As
we can ascertain from the very fact of their translation into Bulgarian, once they were once in
use, but not anymore, i.e., they became forgotten or lost their significance as carriers of folk
wisdom.
If we compare the two sets of translated proverbs and sayings we find out that the
difference between them concerns the validity of their assertions for the modern way of life
today. Even if their origin of both sets was forgotten the nature of the content itself made the
second of them culture-specific unlike the other. The important thing we have to take into
account in addition to the nature of content would be what would have happened to these
same proverbs and sayings if they were kept in a more authentic linguistic form as far as their
origin is concerned? Consider for example the quite popular up to the present day proverb
Насила хубост не бива (Зорлан гюззелик олмаз) or Насила хубост не става “No beauty
(can be achieved) by force”. Both зорлан and гюзел can be recognized in Bulgarian today,
thus offering the theoretical possibility to translate it back in quasi-Turkish Зорлем гюзелик
не става / не се получава. This “translation” would be accepted however today as a parody
of the Bulgarian “original”.
.
All this happened and happens outside the focus of the linguistic awareness of the
speakers of Bulgarian, i.e., spontaneously. They may become aware that certain proverb is
Turkish by origin if and only if they find in it a Turkish loan that is recognized as such. What
happens in such cases? The inevitable. Such proverb becomes a vehicle of a message that is
pejorative in its pathos. If, for example, the scope of the human potential is in question, than
Млaдост – резилик, старост – маскаралък “Youth – disgracehood, old age – skunkhood”
could mean only negative to ambivalent aspects of the “reaches of human nature”, as marked
with the stigma of vernacular insight. The Turkish loans were left in this proverb in order to
make it unmistakably expressive in this respect – as coding profane wisdom (a wider ranging
and detailed discussion of the topic of proverbial lore is available in Stamenov 2011: 250261).
5.2.
Face-to-face intercultural conflict and its aftermath – the fate of the Ottoman
babayiğit and reaya in Bulgarian
Some of the Turkisms that remained to the present day in Bulgarian once coded points of
direct clash during the Bulgarian-Ottoman conflict. It became expressed in the way of
interpretation of identical words in the two languages and cultures. While one of them – e.g.,
babayiğit/бабаит(ин) – remained in Bulgarian in active use up to the present day with
associated quite suggestive changes of meaning, another one – e.g., reaya/рая – remained
chained to the Ottoman past and thus today is interpreted in both languages as historical. Thus
the two words in question show not only similar trend in presenting most contested meanings
in the cross-cultural conflict, but also difference in becoming re-interpreted in line with the
“winds of change” in the Bulgarian society after 1878 vs. remaining anchored to the past.
5.2.1. Ottoman Turkish babayiğit and its metamorphoses in Bulgarian
During the highest point of the Bulgarian-Ottoman conflict in the decades before attaining
independence babayiğit had the meaning in Turkish direct reminiscence of which can still be
found in the contemporary Turkish-X bilingual dictionaries:
Babayiğit 1. Храбър, силен, мъжествен, смел, юначен; възмъжал (Romanski 1952).
Babayiğit същ. Здравеняк; прен. смелчага, юначага; юнак, герой (Dobrev 2009).
Babayiğitlik същ. Смелост; юначност (Dobrev 2009).
Babayiğit Full-grown strong young man; „stout fellow‟; adj. brave, virile (Hony and Iz 1984).
Babayiğitlik Bravery, virility (Hony and Iz 1984).
Babayiğit 1. kräftiger, junger Bursche od. Mann. 2. 2a) mannhaft, mutig, tapfer; 2b) keck, kühn. 3.
ehrenhaft, lauter (Steuerwald 1988).
Babayiğitlik 1. Mannesalter. 2. 2a) Mut, Tapferkeit; 2b) Keckheit, Kühnheit. 3. Ehrenhaftigkeit,
Lauterkeit (Steuerwald 1988).
Babayiğit 1. Богатырь, молодец. 2. Мужественный (отважный, удалой) человек (Baskakov et al.
1977).
The main senses of babayiğit are „heroic brave, courageous”, „strong” и „manly” and their
nominalized counterparts, that are combined in different variations in the explanations
provided by different dictionaries. The only deviation to be acknowledged is due to
Steuerwald (1988) where we find the meaning of “decent, honest”. This adds another
dimension to the meaning, associated with manhood, physical strength and bravery.
Taking the meaning in Turkish as a point of departure, it is instructive to check how
the meaning of this word as a loan in Bulgarian is interpreted in the same European languages
– English, German and Russian:
Бабаит Husky; мор., sl. bucko (Atanasova et al. 1988).
Бабаитлък, бабаитство Bravado, Dutch courage (Atanasova et al. 1988).
Бабаит volкst. Hüne (Walter und Endler 1989).
Бабаит разг. Hüne, Kraftprotz, Eisenfresser (Petkov et al. 2001).
Бабаит разг. Силач, удалец, молодец (Bernstein 1986).
Бабаитски разг. Удалой, молодецкий (Bernstein 1986).
Бабаит m., coll. = Бабаитин. • indecl. adj. Brave, manly (GHS 2002).
Бабаитин m., coll. Husky, strong man who knows how to fight; swashbuckler (GHS 2002).
Бабаитлък m., coll. Swashbucklery, bravado (GHS 2002).
As one can ascertain from the comparisons, only Atanasova et al. (1988) and Petkov et al.
(2001) make an attempt to provide clues that this word has ambivalent or negative meaning in
contemporary Bulgarian. All other compilers of dictionaries treat it as a neutral or even
positive in its connotation. It is worth while acknowledging that the basic word is not
available at all in PONS (2005а), the derivative бабаитлък is available only in Atanasova et
al. (1988), and бабаитски – only in Bernstein (1986). The mixed feelings potential of
бабаитлък is, apparently, matched in English in the context of British-Dutch cross-cultural
relations with the ambivalent collocation Dutch courage.
The interpretation of бабаитин in GHS (2002) is not appropriate at all. It does not
only mix бабаит with пехливан(ин), because ascribes to it the meaning of “strong man who
knows how to compete” for the Bulgarian “едър, силен мъж, който умее да се бори”,
partially borrowed from RBE (1977-), but also attributes to it the completely out of place
equivalent swashbuckler whose meaning in English (with some cultural background) should
be interpreted in Bulgarian along the following lines: „1. появява се през ХVІ век за
именуване на грубите, шумни и перчещи се майстори на сабята/шпагата; 2. днес се
употребява преди всичко при именуване на романтичен литературен прототип на
настроен приключенски безстрашен майстор на шпагата/сабята, който омайва сърцето
на прекрасна дама, докато спасява обществото от попълзновенията на подли злодеи”
(along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashbuckler; 12.01.2012). In Bulgarian
there is no direct lexical match to this personage, although it is very well known from the
translations and filming of literary works presenting swashbucklers like the three musketeers,
Robin Hood or Zorro. If something is sure, it is the point that бабаит(ин) cannot be
compared to a swashbuckler. This example provides us with good opportunity to find out
what the intercultural incommensurability between several languages and cultures may look
like – in this case between the Turkish, Bulgarian and English ones. In order to have a feel of
the level of cultural incommensurability implied, consider the possibility to translate the title
of Alexandre Dumas‟ Les Trois Mousquetaires, dealing par excellence with internationally
acknowledged prototype of swashbucklers, not as Тримата мускетари but as Тримата
бабаити. Such a “translation” would be accepted as deeply profinizing pun, i.e. as a
caricature. Atanasova et al. (1988) come closer to the meaning of the Bulgarian word when
they offer as English equivalent to it bucko „a blustering or swaggering fellow; bully” from
the sailors‟ jargon. This interpretation fits the meaning of бабаит today, but it is not
appropriate for its historical one, especially the one during the Bulgarian revival and fights for
national independence, as documented in most extensive and authentic way in the literary
works of Zachari Stoyanov (as we will see below).
As far as we deal with the derivative бабаитлък, GHS (2002) offers the inappropriate
swashbucklery and the appropriate bravado, if we interpret it in the most profane way
possible as “crude and arrogant displays of swaggering manliness”. The last translational
equivalent is also offered by Atanasova et al. (1988).
Бабаит is one of the words that did not always find completely adequate
interpretations also in the Bulgarian dictionaries:
Бабаит Юнак, удалой, молодец (Gerov 1975).
Бабаит тур. 1. разг. Едър и силен мъж; мъжага, борец, пехливанин. 2. ирон. Човек, който се
представя за много силен, който се перчи със силата си (RSBKE 1959).
Бабаит(ин) Юнак, храбрец (BER 1971-).
Бабаитство 1. Проява или нрав на бабаит. 2. Празна юнащина. Тук няма нужда от бабаитство
(Andreychin et al. 1976).
Бабаит разг. 1. Едър, силен мъж, който умее да се бори; мъжага, юначага; 2. като неизм. прил.
Храбър, мъжествен (RBE 1977-).
Бабаит(ин) и бабаитка разг. Едър, силен, здрав и решителен човек, юначага. Виж го какъв е
бабаитин (BTR 1994).
Бабаит разг. Едър, силен мъж, готов за бой, за подвизи; мъжага, юначага (Burov et al. 2000).
Бабаит(ин) разг. 1. Юнак, храбър човек. 2. Лице, което се представя за силно (Milev et al. 2000).
Бабаит(ин) разг., неодобр. Едър и силен мъж, готов за бой; юнак. Пищеше сръбска музика за
верните му бабаити (Демокрация, бр. 46, 1995, с. 24); Бабаитите съборили човечеца на
земята и го бъхтали, след което опитали да избягат (24 часа, бр. 100, 1996, с. 29); Преди
това бабаитът бил арестуван от полицаи, след като заспал в леглото на последната
изнасилена жертва, разказват криминалистите от Лом, издирващи беглеца (Труд, бр. 121,
2000, с. 24); Ритникът на Благоев обаче бил премерен до сантиметър и само спря пишманбабаита, без да го нарани или контузи (24 часа, бр. 116, 2000, с. 32) (Krasteva 2003).
Бабаитлък неодобр. Юнащина, готовност за бой. Не се навирайте много в куршумите, не
продавайте бабаитлъци. (Г. Караславов); Но едно е престъпникът да получи заслужено
наказание за бабаитлъка си... (Труд, бр. 223, 2001, с. 1). (Krasteva 2003).
The best definitions are offered by RSBKE (1959) and Milev et al. (2000); remarkable in its
own way is the identification of бабаитство as празна юнащина “pointless bravado” by
Andreychin et al. (1976). To what degree they are not well dealt with in the other dictionaries
one can become aware of from the way of its use in the literary works of the classical
Bulgarian writers that set the standard of its interpretation up to the present day – Zachari
Stoyanov and Aleko Konstantinov, as they will be presented below. It is also worth while to
mention the inappropriateness of the definition of this word compared to the way of its use in
the examples offered in Krasteva (2003). The reason the examples are provided, however, is
not only as a proof of the discrepancy, but also to document how this word is used in
contemporary vernacular Bulgarian. Especially telling is the example of пишман-бабаит
whose translation would offer a big challenge to any translator into foreign languages, while
descriptively its meaning could be conceptualized along the lines of “a person not
convincingly trying to present himself and/or act as a bucko; a fake bucko”.
In the present case the older RSBKE (1959) succeeds in offering, in two successive
separate meanings though, the ambivalent semantics that pertains to бабаит(ин) in Bulgarian.
This word is never used today with the straightforward meaning “man of courage” or “a
strapping young man with brave heart” without implying, in different degree according to the
circumstances, the “other side of the coin”, conceptualized as “a man showing off brute force
and arrogance”. The possibilities to describe certain meaning as ambivalent, however, go
outside of the current descriptive potential of both lexicology and lexicography because
ambivalent semantics is not recognized as a separate type of meaning structure. It should be
pointed out explicitly that in cases like this we emphatically are not talking about change of
connotation, e.g., from literal to ironical (as marked in this case in RSBKE 1959) or
derogatory, but about distinct structure of lexical meaning as such (cf. Stamenov 2011, 212250, for presentation of the nature of the ambivalent meaning as a type of meaning with its
own structure).
A well oriented specialist in Bulgarian historical semantics or stylistics may point out
examples that as if contradict the claim made above – that it is impossible with the means of
бабаит(ин) to say something that is definitely positively meant. As a matter of fact, one can
find such examples in the works of the best Bulgarian writers of the classical period, e.g., Ivan
Vazov (1850-1921) who uses it in the sense of “a very strong physically man that can knock
down a bull” in (1) and in (2) even as a straight synonym of юнак “strong and brave man”
(cited from the Archive of IBE):
(1)
(2)
Шеговит е този Мильо, и голям познавач на планините. Трябва да си представите
бабаит, едър, с дебели яки ръце и силни мускули – той би повалил бик! (Иван Вазов,
Пътувания из България, т. ХVІІ, 97).
Между многото бабаити, с които разполагал тогава манастирът против турските
разбойници, по едно време е бил и Илю войвода (Иван Вазов, Рилската пустиня, т. ХV,
49).
The contexts of use “save” бабаит from being interpreted in a negative or ambivalent way,
having further in mind that these are usages from more than a century ago. The citations in (1)
and (2) are, however, from his travelogues. An inspection of the most famous literary works
of Ivan Vazov like Под игото, Немили-недраги and Чичовци dealing with the life under the
(Ottoman) yoke results in the identification of just one use of this word – of a derivative of
бабаит(ин) that is attributed a strictly negative meaning:
(3)
Хасан ага, когато беше добре пиян, охрабряваше; пиенето озверяваше сърцето му и
разпаляше бабаитска кръв у него. Той стъпи на гърба на мухтаря.
– Чорбаджи, дай фенера, не видиш ли?
Цанко подаде фенера машинално, побелял като платно (Vazov 1979: 180–181).
With one usage in his three most famous literary works, he obviously does not ascribe to this
word a value that should be representative of important aspect of the Bulgarian-Ottoman
conflict. Still, it is indeed remarkable that after the Liberation of 1878 Vazov found possible
in certain contexts to use it with positive meaning, as in (1) and (2) above. It is practically
impossible however to use it in this way in contemporary Bulgarian.
The full-scale phenomenology of the way of conceptualization of the word
бабаит(ин) and its derivatives during the last one and a half centuries in Bulgaria is widely
ranging along different dimensions and was addressed elsewhere (cf. Stamenov 2011: 468485). Here it will suffice to make an accent on the main ways of meaning change in the
history of the Bulgarian culture along the lines of its way of use by Zachari Stoyanov (18501889) and Aleko Konstantinov (1863-1897) that show the most important stages of its
semantic transformation compared to its Turkish etymon.
To Zachari Stoyanov belongs the superb way of presenting what the word бабаит(ин)
was used for in the Bulgarian language during the culmination of the Bulgarian-Ottoman
conflict in the 70-ies of the XIX century. As the translation of his masterpiece Journal of
Bulgarian Uprisings as a whole into foreign languages is available in German, Russian,
Polish and Hungarian, but not in English (the longest set of free-style translations from the
Journal are to be found in the century-old Stoyanoff 1913), I will present translations of the
cited passages into German (Stojanow 1978).
From Stoyanov we first learn how a Turkish бабаит(ин) from that period looked like
and what were his manners and behavior during everyday interactions (the renderings of this
word into German are from the translation of Hartmuth Herboth and are marked below in
italics):
(4)
(5)
(6)
Турците са си давали и душата за тях [чанта и навуща]; тия са ги пленили твърде много,
защото пискюллията чанта, белите навуща и черните върви се считат като символ на
юначество, на бабаитлък; а знайно е, че турците с тяхната си кьопавщина не са били в
състояние да си ги направят сами (Stoyanov 1977: 34).
Die Türken gaben Gott weiss was dafür [Tasche und Gamaschen], sie gierten geradezu nach
solchem Schmuck, der als Symbol der Mannhaftigkeit und der Tapferkeit galt und den sie in
ihrem Ungeschick bekantlich nicht selbst herzustellen verstanden (Stojanow, 1978: 39).
Страшна страхотия беше тоя Хасан Пехливан! Аз уж спях, но крадешком можах да го
видя в лицето. Действително той представляваше пехливанин. Мустаките му бяха
дотолкова дълги, щото отдалеч като го гледаше човек, сякаш че държеше в устата си
козинява къделя. Аккапзалията му нож, който допираше до гърдите му, такива широки
колаци имаше, върху които свободно можеше да се закрепят три кафеджийски чаши
от времето на султан Махмуда. Всичко у Хасан Пехливана беше бабаитско.
Бабаитски той говореше, бабаитски си пиеше кафето, бабаитски се даже оригваше.
Той беше родом от едно турско село, близо до Търновско, отгдето нарочно бе дошел
след разбиванието на Дряновския манастир да лови комити (Stoyanov 1977: 670).
In der Tat wirkte sein [von Chassan Pechliwan] Anblick geradezu furchterregend. Ich stellte
mich schlafend, konnte ihn aber genau betrachten. Er sah wirklich aus wie ein Pechliwan, ein
Ringkämpfer. Sein Schnurrbart war so lang, dass man von weitem dachte, er habe einen
Strang Wolle im Mund. Auf dem breiten Handschutz seines Säbels, dessen weisser Griff* [*
Es gab Säbel mit weissem und solche mit schwarzem Knauf (“akkapsali” und “karakapsali”),
die weissgriffigen aber galten mehr, sie werden auch in Babaitenlieder gesungen. ] seine Brust
berührte, hätten bequem drei Kaffeetassen aus Sultan Machmuds Zeiten Platz gehabt. Alles an
ihm verriet den Babaiten, den Haudegen und starken, rechten Mann –so redete er, so trank er
seinen Kaffee, und so rülpste er sogar. Er stammte aus einem türkischen Dorf bei Tirnowo, das
er nach der Zerstörung des Klosters von Drjanowo eigens mit dem Vorsatz verlassen hatte,
Komiten zu jagen (Stojanow, 1978: 645).
Няколко крачки още, и ние бяхме накрая на селото. Конвоят се спря за минута и всеки
от турците тури на себе си ръка, да се накичи и нагизди за пред хората, да изгледва
колкото е възможно по-страшно и по-бабаитски. Подкривиха си шаловете на една
страна, които затуляваха едното им око, изтриха си пушките и ги преметнаха горделиво
на рамо. Колкото за мустаките, които са огледало и мерило на всяка бабаитска душа, не
иска и дума. Тия се сучеха и въртяха най-много. Хасан Пехливан извади из пояса си
една малка кутийка, колкото биволско око, с огледалце от едната страна, а вътре пълна
(7)
(8)
с някаква си черна мас (буюк я), която миришеше на дервишки броеници и с която си
измазаха мустаките. Той, Хасан Пехливан, такава форма даде на своите дълги
мустачуни, щото повечето заприлича в лицето на бурмалия-овен, отколкото на човек
(Stoyanov 1977: 676–677).
Kurz von dem Ortseingang hielt unser Trupp an. Jeder der Türken traf letzte Vorbereitungen,
sich für den Einzug herauszuputzen und so furchterregend und verwegen wie möglich zu
wirken. Die Turbantücher wurden so schief gerückt, dass sie ein Auge verdeckten, die
Gewehre abgewischt und forsch über die Schulter gehängt. Dass die Schnurrbärte, Abbild und
Gradmesser wahrer Männlichkeit, die intensivste Behandlung efruhren, bedarf eigentlich
keiner Erwähnung. Chassan Pechliwan holte eine kleine runde Dose von Grösse eines
Büffelauges aus seinem Wickelgürtel. Sie hatte auf der einen Seite einen Spiegel und enthielt
eine schwarze Paste (bujuk ja), die duftete wie die Zählschur eines Derwischs. Mit ihr rieben
alle drei ihren Schhnurrbart ein. Chassan Pechliwan gab dem seinen eine solche Form, dass er
aussah wie ein Hammel mit gedrehten Hörnern (Stojanow, 1978: 651-652).
В кафеоджа се намираше уж затворен млад турчин, родом от града, син на богати
родители, със сърмен джамадан, със сини сукнени потури, със сребърен ланц през
врата от три-четири ката, с много пискюли от дребни мерджани, с кехлибарено
цигаре и златошита муска на дясната му ръка, да го не хваща куршум, с една реч –
всичко, каквото се кити един благороден и бабаитин, не липсуваше по него. Неговата
вина се състоеше в това, че влякъл кадъни по лозята, което не беше вина като за него и
подобните му, но нещо като приятно приключение, като знак за бъдеще. И заптии, и
затворници, които минуваха покрай него, с благоговение му отдаваха селям. Той беше
от така наречените гьоз-хапузи, пред нашия затвор в сайванчето се излежаваше
повечето от определеното време. Деня той седеше мирен, седнал на вапсана овча кожа
от червена краска, а нощно време, заедно със заптиите, разиграваше кючеци. Понякога
свиреше и на булгарина така обаятелно в нощната тъмнина, щото целият затвор
онемяваше (Stoyanov 1977: 771–772).
Im Zimmer mit der Herdstatt sass, offiziel ebenfalls als Gefangener, ein junger Türke aus der
Stadt, Sohn reicher Eltern. Er trug eine filigranbestickte Weste, blaue Tuchhosen und eine
drei- oder vierfach um den Hals gelegte silberne Kette mit vielen Klunkern aus kleinen
Korallen daran. Seine Zigaretten rauchte er in einer Bernsteinspitze, an seinem rechten
Habdgelenk hinge in goldbestickter Talisman, damit ihn keine Kugel traf, kurz, es fehlte
nichts, was einen vornehmen Babaiten zu zieren vermochte. Verurteilt war er, weil er
Türkenfrauen in die Weinberge entführt hatte, was er und seinesgleichen nicht als
verdammenswertes Verbrechen, sondern als angenehmes Abenteuer und vielversprechenden
Auftakt für künftige Taten wertreten. Alle Saptiehs wie auch Gefängnisinsassen, die an ihm
vorübergingen, grüssten ihn ehrerbietig. Er war ein sogenannter “Gjos-Chapus”, das heisst
einer der sich ohne strenge Haft in Polizeigewahrsam befand. Den grössten Teil der ihm
zugemessenen Zeit verbrachte er unter dem Vordach vor unserem Kerker. Tagsüber sass er
dort geruhsam auf einem rot gefärbten Lammfell, nachts tanzte er mit den Saptiehs Kjotschek.
Mitunter spielte er auch im nächtlichen Dunke so zart auf der Bulgarina, dass das ganze
Gefängnis schweigend lauschte (Stojanow 1978: 748).
– Къде карате тия кучета бе, бабаитлар? – подкачаше други. – Защо и за какво са те на
царя? Не затова ли да ги храни и утре, в други ден да ги освободят гяурските елчии
(консули)? От осмината само двама трябваше да останат дотука, а вие ги мъдрите като
писани яйца.
– А бе, пехливанлар, ако стана и аз един комита, и мене така ли ще ме галите и
мажете, както правите с българските комити? – питаше иронически от талигата един
стар турчин (Stoyanov 1977: 818–819).
“Wozu schleppt ihr diese Hunde durch die Gegend, ihr Helden? ” fragte ein anderer spöttisch.
“Was soll den der Sultan mit ihnen? Sie durchfüttern, um sie dann auf Verlangen irgend so
eines Giaurkonsuls freizulassen, wie? Ihr hättet von den acht Kerlen bis hierher höchstens
zwei übrigenlassen sollen, statt dessen behandelt ihr sie wie rohe Eier.”
“He, ihr Draufgänger, würdet ihr mich auch so verwöhnen wie diese Bulgaren, wenn ich
Komit wäre?” rief ein alter Türke ironisch von seinem Fuhrwerk herab (Stojanow 1978: 794).
In (4) the derivative from бабаит(ин) бабаитлък is translated as Tapferkeit “bravery”; in (5)
Babait is reproduced as in original and two contextual synonyms to it follow immediately –
Haudegen “old soldier” and starker, rechter Mann “strong, just man”; in (6) the derivative
adjective used бабаитски is translated consecutively as verwegen “adv. foolhardily, boldly,
venturesomely, in a risky or dangerous manner” and as displaying the Gradmesser wahrer
Mannlichkeit “measure of true masculinity”; in (7) it is again not translated but given in its
original form; in (8) it is rendered as Held “hero”. From this selection of translations it may
look as if it refers to positively evaluated subject. The context however, invariably relativizes
the meaning ascribed in each of the cases to an ironic or ambivalent one.
From another set of examples one can learn the authentic qualities and traits of the real
бабаит(ин) from the point of view of the Turks and through the eyes of Stoyanov himself
when he narrates from his own perspective:
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
И в това село [Поибрене] така също бяха заклали вече пъдарина си, помак. При
всичката своя килавщина той не бил чужд на отличителните турски качества –
бабаитлик и фанатизъм (Stoyanov 1977: 414).
Auch hier haben die Bewohner ihren Flurwächter bereits umgebracht, einen Pomaken, dem
trotz ziemlicher Körperschwäche die einen Türken auszeichnenden Eigenschaften –
Grosstuerei und Fanatismus – nicht fremd gewesen waren (Stojanow 1978: 404-405).
– Вината е пак в нас – обади се да каже своето мнение и старият турчин, който мълчеше
до това време. – Ние сами презряхме най-напред нашите бабаити и нофузлии
(влиятелни) хора. Кой ни управлява сега войската? Не вчерашни ли чапкъни и пущове
с лачени кондурки, с тънки пръсти и с панталони, които две крачки да пристъпят, ще
извадят да гледат гяурската книга. А где останаха нашите бабаити и пехливани, които
се наблягаха само на своите ятагани? Ходят по Балкана, презрени от всекиго, да гонят
комитите. Твоя милост например, наместо да бъдеш някой паша, дошел си да гониш
комити. Нашето царство беше тогава силно, когато войските ни се управляваха от
бабаити с подсукани мустаци и с дълги ятагани на кръста! (Stoyanov 1977: 672).
„Es ist unsere Schuld“, meinte der alte Türke, der bis dahin geschwiegen hatte. “Wir
missachten unsere Babaiten und erfahrenen Autoritäten. Wer führt den heute das Militär?
Doch nur Weiberhelden und Schwächlinge in Lakschuhen und engen Hosen, die ihre zarten
Hände pflegen und dauernd in irgendein Giaurbuch starren. Wo sind unsere Babaiten und
Pechliwane, die allein ihrem Jatagan vertrauen? Durch den Balkan ziehen sie, von jedermann
verachtet, um Komiten zu jagen. Du zum Beispiel solltest Pascha sein, anstatt dich hier mit
Komiten abzugeben. Unser Reich war stark, solange unsere Soldaten von Babaiten mit
gezwirbelten Schnurrbart und einem langen Jatagan an der Hüfte beffehligt wurden!”
(Stojanow 1978: 647).
– Срамота е, малко аип дохожда, ага, ние, мусулманите, да бием вързан човек, който
се чете вече, че е човек на правителството, на нашите ръце е станал теслим – отговори
бошнакът. – Тая работа е долна, не подобава на един бабаит човек (Stoyanov 1977: 725).
“Es wäre nicht recht, Aga, ja sogar beschämend, würden wir als Moslems einen Gefesselten
schlagen, den man noch dazu von Staats wegen unserem Schutz anvertraut hat”, entgegnete
der Bosnier. “So was ist unwürdig und ziemt sich nicht für einen rechten Mann” (Stojanow
1978: 700)
Тия [въстаниците] спели, когато ги нападнала потерята и изгърмяла върху им. Георги и
Стефана заклали на мястото още и им натъкнали главите на колове. Щели да заколят и
Каблешкова, но съветът им решил и намерил за по-добро, че ако носят две глави и карат
двама души живи – бабаитлъкът е по-голям. Това съображение ги запазило живи
(Stoyanov 1977: 747–748).
Die Häscher hatten sie in Schlaf überfallen und sogleich das feuer eröffnet. Georgi und Stefan
waren auf die Stelle tot; ihre Köpfe wurden auf Stangen gespiesst. Die Türken wollten auch
Kableschkow umbringen, doch nach kurzer Beratung schien es ihnen für ihre Reputation als
(13)
(14)
(15)
tapfere Helden besser, wenn sie zwei Köpfe und zwei lebende Komiten brachten. Diese
Überlegung rettete den beiden das Leben (Stojanow 1978: 723).
Много пъти, вечер, около нашия синджир се натискаше пъстра навалица, да слуша
какво ще да разказва Телеграфът. Тук не липсуваше и горделивият турски бабаитин,
легнал по очите си или се изкеврил на една страна с опулени очи срещу разказвача;
пехливанинът помак с нарочно отворени гърди, покрити с дебело руно косми и с
подпършени ръкави, готов на всяка минута да плесне ръце за борба; дивият и отчаян
черкезин, че не е свободен в такова благоприятно за яма време; най-после веселият
циганин, който не преставаше да си дръгне разчорлената нечиста глава. Даже и малката
ламбица, монопол само на бабаитите, се преместяше отпред Каблешкова, да бъде подобре чуто и видено (Stoyanov 1977: 749).
Oft drängte sich des Abends eine bunte menge vor unserer Kette, um zu hören, was der
“Telegraph” zu erzählen hatte. Alle waren sie da – die stolzen türkischen Haudegen, auf dem
Bauch oder krumm auf die Seite liegend und den Sprecher unverwandt anstarrend; die
kräftigen Pomaken mit aufgekrempelten Ärmeln und absichtlich offenen Hemd, um die
dichtbehaarte Brust recht zur Geltung zu bringen, jederzeit bereit, durch ein Händeklatschen
jemanden zum Ringkampf aufzufordern; die wilden, verwegenen Tscherkessen, betrübt
darüber, dass sie in einer für ihre Raubzüge so günstigen Zeit nicht in Freiheit waren, und
schiesslich die fröhlichen Zigeuner, die sich unaufhörlich den unsauberen Wuschelkopf
kratzten. Man stellte sogar die kleine Lampe, das Monopol der türkischen starken Männer, vor
Kableschkow hin, damit er besser zu sehen war (Stojanow 1978: 724-725).
Когато ни пуснаха вечерта на двора, той [Амиш] застана под прозорците на агите и
почна открая. Най-напред започна да псува заптиите, че били хора едепсизи; после
дойде до ефендетата, каймакамина и кадията, които нарече московци, а най-сетне –
отиде и към Цариград. Дълго време никой не му се обади нищо, всички слушаха, а
заптиите си намираха работа другаде. Такъв беше неговият авторитет, такъв е той и на
всички прочути бабаити, за които се парализираше всеки закон от провинциалните
власти.
Амиш беше бягал няколко пъти от ръцете на правителството, избяга и сега. Ние бяхме в
Търново, още същия почти месец, когато се научихме, че като го карали за Русе,
сполучил да избяга по пътя, разбира се, с помощта на заптиите (Stoyanov 1977: 792).
Da stellte er [Аmisch] sich am Abend, als man uns auf den Hof führte, unter die Fenster der
Agas und machte seinem Zorn ausgiebig Luft. Zuerst schimpfte er die Saptiehs unverschämte
Schandbuben, dann nannte er die Effendis, Kaimakams und Kadis allesamt Moskowiter, und
schliesslich bekam auch noch Regierung in Stambul ihr Teil. Man liess ihn lange gewähren,
niemand schritt gegen ihn ein, die Saptiehs betätigten sich anderwärts. Er genoss – wie alle
berühmten Recken – eine Autorität, die die gesetzliche Macht zumindest der Provinzbehörden
lähmte.
Amisch war schon mehrfach aus dem Staatsgewahrsam entwischen, und das tat er auch
diesmal. Noch im selben Monat oder Anfang des nächten erfuhren wir in Tirnovo, er sei auf
dem Transport nach Rustschuk geflohen, natürlich nicht ohne Unterstützung von Seiten der
Saptiehs (Stojanow 1978: 769).
Първи кандидат за бесилката в това време между българите беше Сава Пенев; а
измежду турците – някой си Юмер, който се обвиняваше в това, че със собствената си
ръка заклал жена си и двете си дечица, по бабаитски. Той не закъсня да дойде да се
видят със Савата, с когото се разговориха надълго и широко в какво да употребят
останалите дни на живота си (Stoyanov 1977: 823).
Die ersten Anwärter auf den Galgen waren zu der Zeit unter den Bulgaren Sawa Penew und
unter den Turken ein gewisser Jumer, der beschuldigt wurde, seine Frau und seine beiden
Kinder auf rechte Schlägeart umgebracht zu haben. Er säumte nicht, Sawa aufzusuchen und
sich mit ihm des langen und breiten darüber zu unterhalten, wie sie die letzten Tage ihres
Lebens nutzen könnten (Stojanow 1978: 799).
In this selection, Hartmut Herboth again sometimes uses directly Babait in his translation. He,
however, does not include this word into the Notes section dedicated mainly to translations
and explanations of the meanings of Turkish loans in the text. In (9) бабаитлик is identified
with Grosstuerei “boastfulness, bragging”; in (10) Babait is left untranslated; in (11) he is
glossed with rechter Mann “righteous man”; in (12) бабаитлък is equated with having a
reputation of acting as tapfere Helden “courageous heroes”; in (13) бабаит is translated as
Haudegen “broad-sword; fig. old trooper, old warhorse”; in (14) as Recke “warrior”; and in
(15) the adjective form бабаитски is not translated but the nature of the Tat “deed” is given
descriptively – thus the allusion what fits a Babait is lost and it remains unclear why and how
one is supposed to kill one‟s wife and children in such a way as to be considered appropriate
for a бабаит. On another occasion, e.g., on p. 712, he equates Babaiten with starken Männern
“strong men”.
As one can ascertain from (9)-(15), everywhere in life – in the eyes of Ottoman
administracy as well as in prison – to бабаити belonged the most prestigious status and place
in the community. They were the main heroes of the vernacular Ottoman Turkish culture of
the time. That remained to be the case even when a representative of this type of a person has
gained acknowledgment by killing with his own hands his wife and two small children, as it is
the case in (15). It is quite remarkable to notice that in the context of a book of 900 pages, the
meaning ascribed and the ways of use of бабаит(ин) and its derivatives is such that one
cannot find a solution in translating it not just with one or two, but with a whole set of
contextually fit equivalents with widely deviating from each other meanings – from ehrenhaft
and tapfere Held to Haudegen and a to person performing Grosstuereien. From the variety of
meanings ascribed to this word within the text of Stoyanov one can infer its cultural
significance in the eyes of the participants in the big historical drama of the time – the April
uprising of Bulgarian people against the Ottoman yoke.
We can also acknowledge that in the context of everyday cohabitation in the Balkan
town or village the status of бабаит(ин) cuts across the social, ethnic and religious borders –
it could be ascribed to a non-Muslim and non-Turk of any background as far as the mutual
recognition of the right of the stronger among males is ascertained:
(16)
(17)
(18)
Ферманът на калоферци е бил „петел”, което само по себе си, без дълги и широки
коментарии значи: свобода, воля, бабаитлък и сербезлик. През улиците на Калофер не
е можело да премине турчин с кован кон, нито пък да роди кадъна! (Stoyanov 1980:
316)
The ferman of the inhabitants of Kalofer spoke for itself – it was supposed without further ado
to mean freedom, independence, bravado and displays of daring and courage. A Turk was not
permited to pass the streets of the town with shod horse, nor a Turkish woman was alowed to
bear a child in it (transl. mine; M. S.).
За дяда Панайота [Хитов] нека кажат сливенци. Старите войводи имаха значение и
кураж дотогава, докогато минуваха за хайдути и докогато турските аени ги имаха за
бабаити на равна степен с турците. Щом думата комита доби право на гражданство,
щом бесилките се устроиха из България, мисията на старите войводи престана вече
(Stoyanov 1977: 150).
Weiterhin mögen sich die Sliwener über ihn [Woiwode Panajot Chitow] äussern. Die alten
Woiwoden hatten nur Einfluss und Mut, als man sie noch für Haiduken hielt und die
türkischen Behörden sie auf eine Stufe mit den eigenen Räuberhelden stellten. Sobald das
wort Komita aufkam und in Bulgarien Galgen errichtet wurden, ging die Mission der alten
Woiwoden zu Ende (Stojanow 1978: 151-152)
С нищо друго не се отличава байрактарът на Ботйова [Куруто Симолу] освен с това, че
като бил още рая в родния си град [Ески Джумая, Стара Загора], по двадесет пъти в
годината влизал в затвор все за едно и също: че пукал главите на турските чапкъни и
немилостиво се биел с тях, без да прави разлика, че е позорен рая. Занаятът му бил да
продава с кон по турските тузлушки села антерии, памук и пр. Тук той се настървил и
(19)
увълчил. Бабаитлъкът му станал толкова известен, щото самите турци ходели да го
търсят и искат помощта на ножа му (Stoyanov 1980: 502).
There was nothing special in Botev‟s standard bearer [Kuru Simolu] except that when he was
rayah in his home town [Еski Djumaya,Stara Zagora] he was brought to the jail twenty times
per year for a single reason – he fought mercilessly the Turkish rakes without taking into
account his position of a shameful rayah. His business was to sell jackets, cotton, etc. with
horse in the neighboring Turkish villages. At that time he became enraged and rapacious. His
bravery became so popular that Turks themselves came to him to ask for the services of his
knife (transl. mine; M. S.).
– Когато аз бях силен, а ти рая – казал той [Селим чауш] на Савата, – гонех те,
изпълнявах своя дълг към отечеството си, защото ти му копаеше гроб. Днес ти си силен,
а аз рая, твоят народ е господар. Дай ми правото като човек бабаит и ми помогни.
– Ние сме братя! – отговорил Савата и приел под свое покровителство достойния си
противник (Stoyanov 1977: 816).
“Als ich stark war und du zur Rajah gehörtest”, sagte er [Selim Tschausch] ihm, “habe ich
dich verfolgt, aber das war meine Pflicht gegenüber meinem Vaterland, an dessen Grab du
geschaufelt hast. Heute bist du stark, und wir sind die Rajah, dein Volk hat die Macht. Nun
gibt mir als rechter Man mein Recht und hilf mir.”
“Wir sind Brüder!” erwiderte Sawa und nahm seinen würdigen Feind unter seinen Schutz
(Stojanow 1978: 792).
From (16) one can see that the right to display “bravado” was granted to the inhabitants of
some towns during the age of the Bulgarian Renaissance and this was the case because they
were granted certain privileges by the Ottoman authorities. The Turks recognized the right of
the stronger to men from other ethnic and religious background, and consequently accepted
the displays of бабаитлък from them, as is the case in (17). In (18) we see that in the
intercultural competition in бабаитлък a Bulgarian could win against the Turks and his right
not to be recognized as “позорен рая” “shameful rayah” is acknowledged by them. The
бабаит right was accepted as valid in (19) even in the cases when the master-slave
relationship switched after Bulgaria achieved independence because it was recognized and
remained over and above the official one (whatever it is) for those who accepted it as valid.
The opportunistic translation of бабаит(ин) in this case as rechter Man “just, righteous man”
blocks the possibility in an appropriate way to understand the nature of the attribution of
meaning to this word from the point of view of Bulgarians compared to Turks.
Even the Orthodox Christian priests did not escape the charm of the бабаит(ин)
example during the revolutionary period of April uprising of 1876:
(20)
[...] но свещеник Грую [Бански] надминуваше всички. Той влечеше дълга сабля,
останала от времето на султан Селима, която час по час вадеше да я върти над главата
си, като свиваше в същото това време и своя кон назад и напред. Два пищова с жълти
тапанджи, на големина като турски часовник, подигаха от двете страни пастирското
джубе. Кръстът му бе пристегнат с мешинен силяхлък, на който имаше нанизани
различни паласки, арнаутски пиринчени кутии, съдържающи всякакви потребности за
оръжията. Над силяхлъка отгоре се подаваше червеният патрахил, който държеше
мястото на сърмалията джевре, което се употребява от бабаитите за украшение.
Между пищова и харбията гордо завземаше мястото черковният требник, дървените
кори на който бяха охлузени като лопата (Stoyanov 1977: 336-337).
Den Vogel schoss in dieser Hinsicht jedoch Gruju ab, der Geistliche. Er führte einen langen,
noch aus der Zeit des Sultan Selim stammenden Säbel mit sich, den er alle Augenblicke zog
und über seinem Haupte schwang, wobei er zugleich sein Ross tänzeln liess. Zwei Pistolen mit
gelben Griffen von dder Grösse einer Türkenuhr bauschten auf beiden Seiten sein pastorales
Übergewand. An dem ledernen Waffengurt um seine Hüfte hingen nebeneinander mehrere
Patronentaschen und arnautische Messingdosen für allerlei Waffenzubehör. Oben sah ein
Stück seiner roten Priesterstola hervor, die er so trug wie verwegene Draufgänger ihr
Dshewre, das filigranbestickte Ziertuch. Zwischen einer Pistole und dem Ladestock steckte
stolz das kirchliche Ritualbuch, dessen hölzerne Einbanddeckel blankgewetzt waren wie ein
Grabescheit (Stojanow 1978: 331-332).
The priest Gruyu Banski will pay later dearly in the Ottoman jails for these displays in the
style of verwegene Draufgänger “daring daredevil” according to бабаит example.
It should also be clear what was the nature of the relationship between бабaити and
рая. It becomes evident, for example, from the way Zachari Stoyanov exploits the Turkish
stereotype, in this respect, in order to alleviate his position after he was caught in the
mountains as a rebel (комита):
(21)
[...] като знаех, че колкото повече мълчи човек пред турците и им се представлява за
сериозен, толкова по-много ги е гняв, че уж от злоба и ненавист правиш това, реших да
им се обадя. Нарекох ги алар и бейлер, казах им, че познавам тяхното благородство, че
се боях, дордето бях в гората, а не и сега, когато се намирам теслим на бабаитските им
ръце; изявих съмнение, че техните ножове никой път няма се омацат в кръвта като на
мен ничтожен човек, и най-после припаднах на техния османлийски мерхамет, да ми
дадат цигара тютюн и кора хляб, защото от петнадесят деня трева паса (Stoyanov 1977:
660).
[...] wusste ich jedoch, dass Schweigen und zur Schau gestellte Würde die Türken nur noch
mehr aufbrachten, da sie solches Verhalten als Trotz und Hass deuteten. So sprach ich denn.
Ich nannte sie Agas und Beys, appellierte an ihren Edelmut, erklärte, dass ich im Wald grosse
Angst ausgestanden hätte, mich nun aber in ihrer starken Hand sicher fühlte, weil sie gewiss
niemals ihre Säbel mit dem Blut eines so unbedeutenden Menschen wie mir beschmutzen
würden, und bat sie schliesslich, mir in ihrer osmanischen Barmherzigkeit Tabak für eine
Zigarette und ein Stück Brot zu geben, da ich seit fünfzehn Tagen nur Gras gegessen hätte
(Stojanow 1978: 636).
In this example the adjective бабаитски is translated simply as stark “strong”. The residual
meaning is relegated to the context.
As Stoyanov knew very well the nature of the бабаит codex of honour, he uses it
when he fights for his own life – he puts his faith on the мерхаметлик „mercy, sympathy,
compassion” as a virtue of the Muslim ходжа “imam” and on the expectation that one
бабаит is not supposed to disappoint another one, and because of the intercession of the
ходжа saves himself from the imminent execution with a knife by Hassan aga:
(22)
Тук ме [Джендо] попитаха още два-три пъти ще кажа ли правото, а после ме накараха да
клекна на колене до самата река и да си наведа вратът надолу. Вместо това аз стиснах с
две ръце джубето на ходжата и му казах такива думи, които до тоя час не бях говорил
ни на баща си. Молби, обещания и други род унижения бяха в изобилие. Най-после
ходжата според мене беше покъртен, сполучих да възбудя в него османско честолюбие.
– Хасан ага, харижи [бана башла] на мене тоя гяурджик – каза той. – Аз ти се
обещавам, че тая нощ, най-много до утре, той ще да каже всичко на мене. В противен
случай аз сам ще му отрежа главата.
Хасан ага не скърши хатъра на ходжата (Stoyanov 1977: 695).
Ich wurde noch zwei- oder dreimal gefragt, ob ich jetzt die Wahrheit sagen wolle, dann musste
ich unmittelbar am Wasser niederknien und den Kopf beugen. Aber ich klammerte mich mit
beiden Händen an den Kaftan des Hodschas und flehte zu ihm in Worten, wie ich sie bis dahin
nicht einmal vor meinem Vater gebraucht hatte. Mit einem Schwall von Bitten, inständigen
Beteuerungen und dergleichen erniedrigte ich mich vor ihm. Dadurch gelang es mir wohl
endlich, sein Herz zu rühren und sein osmanisches Ehrgefühl zu wecken.
“Chassan aga, schenk mir diesen Giaur”, sagte er. “Ich verpreche dir, dass er mir noch in
dieser Nacht, spätestens aber morgen alles erzählen wird. Andernfalls schlage ich ihm selbst
den Kopf ab”.
Chassan Aga tat dem Hodscha den Gefallen (Stojanow 1978: 669).
When we reached the brink, I was again asked two or three times if I would confess, and on
my persisting in my story was ordered to kneel down and stretch my neck. Instead of this, I
clasped with both my hands the khoja‟s robe, and addressed him in words which I had never
employed before even to my own father.
This entreaty moved the good khoja. “Hassan Aga,” he said, “let him go this time, for my
sake. I promise you that by this time tomorrow he‟ll have confessed everything to me; if he
hasn‟t, I‟ll cut off his head myself.”
Hassan Aga was unwilling to refuse this request (Stoyanoff 1913: 246).3
In commenting on this remarkable episode from the Journal, Stoyanov writes in an
additional explanatory note the following:
„В бабаитския катехизис тая дума (бана башла) е твърде позната и свята.
Много нещастни раи в по-старите времена тя е снемала от бесилищата”
(Stoyanov 1977: 695).
Diese Bitte – türkisch “banabaschla” – gehörte zum Katechismus der Babaiten, das
heisst der rechten Männer, und war ihnen heilig. Das Wort hat in früherer Zeit viele
ins Unglück geratene Angehörige der Rajah vor dem Galgen gerettet (Stojanow 1978:
669).
In this case Hartmut Herboth found appropriate to use both the Turkish loan Babaiten, as well
as its contextually fit synonym rechte Männer “men of justice”. Zachari Stoyanov himself
used the opposite strategy – he made a crystal-clear difference between displays of justice,
bravery and manhood and true examples of them, independently who was the subject –
Bulgarians of Turks:
(23)
(24)
– Домуз-ханзър-гяуру! Каква ви беше клетвата? Не се ли кълняхте един други, че сто
души турци да дойдат, пак ще да се хванете за оръжие и ще умрете като бабаити? –
говореше един от турците със скръцнати зъби, вероятно на някой от издихающите
трупове на моите другари, и ножът му захващаше да ги сече, което се познаваше по
плющението на костите (Stoyanov 1977: 609).
“Domus chansyr gjauru [ungläubiges Schwein]! Wie war das mit eurem Eid? Habt ihr euch
nicht geschworen, selbst gegen hundert Türken die Waffen zu erheben und als Helden zu
sterben?” sagte ein Türke zähnekirschend, vermutlich über einem meiner in den letzten Zügen
liegendem Gefährten, dem er mit dem Säbel den Garaus machte, wie ich am Krachen der
Knochen erkannte (Stojanow 1978: 586).
После малко пушките затрещяха на железницата и станцията пламна от четирите
страни. Заптиите бидоха избити; но юначеството не оставаше на наша страна, а на
тяхната, защото те, макар да бяха поганци, пак умяха да измрат мъченически, не
преклониха глави да се предадат (Стоянов 1977, 482).
Bald darauf krachten an der Station die Gewehre, und das Haus ging vor allen vier Ecken in
Flammen auf. Die Saptiehs fanden den Tod, aber sie bewiesen mehr Heldenmut als unsere
Leute, denn sie blieben fest und starben als Märtyrer, obwohl sie Heiden waren (Stojanow
1978: 471).
In example (23) we are talking about heroism when it comes to die as бабаити because the
word is uttered by a Turk in Turkish of the period (re-presented in Bulgarian). On the other
hand, it is put in the mouth of a bashibazouk at the very moment he kills one of the leaders of
the uprising, Georgi Benkovski and that happened as an outcome of an ambush, but not in
face-to-face fight. In (24) instead when it comes to heroism in the author‟s narrative, Zachari
Stoyanov uses the Bulgarian word юначество but not бабаитлък even if he is speaking
about the behavior of the rival Ottoman police constables. This is supposed to signal in an
unmistakable way that he evaluates the deeds of the corresponding individuals as a straight
heroism displayed by them. Бабаитлък is constantly relativized as far as it may mean
different things when used by Bulgarians, the Turks, and by the author himself. Юначество
instead means literally heroism independently to whom it is attributed, i.e., it has context-free
value. One cannot detect the difference in question using German translation because there
both of these words happen to be translated as Held “hero” and Heldenmut “heroic behavior,
heroism”.
As we can ascertain, the uses of бабаит and its derivatives in the works of Zachari
Stoyanov are by far the most exemplary, if we are interested in the ways of expression of
intercultural conflict. On the one hand, the author juxtaposes true bravery/heroism to its fake
counterpart of бабаитлък from the point of view of the Bulgarian culture. On the other hand,
Stoyanov as a Bulgarian-Turkish bilingual could evaluate one and the same behavioral act
from the point of view of the ways of use of this words both in Bulgarian and Turkish. The
latter does not lead however to cultural relativism, because he qualifies as a true heroism
certain behavior independently of the circumstance who is displaying it – Bulgarian or Turk –
with the Bulgarian word only. This strategy blocks the symmetric cultural relativism of
interpretation and helps unmistakably display the true attitude of the author as identifying
himself with the Bulgarian language and culture.
The next decisive change in the way of interpretation of the word бабаит(ин) and its
derivatives is to be found in the work of another Bulgarian writer of the classical period –
Aleko Konstantinov. It is his usage that became cemented for the next more that 100 years as
the way Bulgarians interpret this word up to the present day in terms of his outlook, manners
and characteristic ways of behavior:
(25)
(26)
Боже! Какво виждам! Бай Ганьо се съблякъл по ръкави и си разкопчал жилетката, която
го стяга от натъпканите в пояса му мускали: един от служителите на театъра го хванал
с два пръста за ръкава и му прави с глава съвсем недвусмислени знакове да поизлезе
вън; бай Ганьо се облещил насреща му и му отговаря също със знакове – „санким, кого
ще уплашиш?” Този именно бабаитски момент изтръгва истерическия смях у едно
момиченце, което седеше зад нас, и този смях зарази целия театър (Konstantinov 2005:
19).
“Oh my God! What do I see? Bai Ganyo has stripped to his shirtsleeves and unbuttoned his
vest, which was constricting the wide sash wound right around his waist, where he has stuffed
– for safekeeping – all the muskali. One of the ushers had him by the sleeve with two fingers,
gesturing unambiguously with his head for him to leave. Bai Ganyo stared back at him and
answered with gestures of his own: “What? Who are you trying to scare?” It was his
blustering bravado that had made a young girl sitting behind us burst into hysterical laughter,
and her laughter infected the whole theater.” (Konstantinov 2010: 22; the translational
equivalents of the Turkisms are marked in italics by me; M.S.)
Независимо от бабаитското поведение и маниери на бай Ганя, които вече заприличаха
на кощунство, на подигравка със свещените чувства на всички окръжающи, a и самият
му външен изглед съвсем не вдъхваше симпатия на американците и англичаните, а
особено на нежната им половина.
Бай Ганьо беше облечен в бозови шаячни дрехи, с нечистени, запрашени ботуши,
вратът му завързан с една голяма траурна кърпа, под която се виждаше доста кирлива,
разкопчана по средата риза. В ръката му бастон и под мишницата един пакет, обвит с
жълта книга. Мустаките му бяха пак засукани, а брадицата му пак небръсната –
обрасла… (Konstantinov 2005: 28).
(27)
(28)
(29)
“Even if you ignored the blustering behavior and manners of Bai Ganyo, which had already
begun to seem like a sacrilege, like a mockery of the tender feelings of all present, his very
outward appearance failed to elicit favorable reaction from the Americans and the English,
particularly those of gentler sex.
Bai Ganyo was dressed in drab homespun clothes and wearing dirty dust-encrusted boots; a
large black cloth was tied around his neck as a sign of mourning. A rather grimy shirt,
unbuttoned to the waist, could be seen under this. A walking stick was in his hand, and a
package wrapped in yellow paper was under his arm. His mustache was neatly twisted up at
the ends, yet his chin was unshaven and stubbly.” (Konstantinov 2010: 31).
– О-о! Бай Ганьо! Добре дошъл! – извика цялата компания.
– Добре заварил! Как сте? – отговори новодошлият и като се отказа великодушно от
любезните предложения да му направят място около техните маси, дойде и седна при
моята маса и със сядането си прекатури чашата с кафето ми. Бабаитска натура!
– Пърдон! (Konstantinov 2005: 77).
“Oho! Bai Ganyo! Welcome!” cried out the entire group.
“Good to be here. How are you?” answered the newcomer who, benevolently refusing polite
offers to make room for him at their tables came and sat at mine, overturning my cup of coffee
as he sat down. A natural bully.
“Pardonne” (Konstantinov 2010: 74).
Аз стъпвам като в паници и си смятам в ума как ще се явя с бай Ганя в Дешовката и как
ще оправдая тази своеволна постъпка. Трябва да излъжа! Пък виждам, че да се откача от
него, е немислимо! Най-сетне, нали е работата за няколко дена, по неволя примирих се с
положението. А бай Ганьо върви ли, върви подире ми и все мъмре, но остави вече
бабаитския език и почна в миньорен тон: „Я чувай, бай Василе, почакай малко бе, моля
ти се бе, бай Василе, българи сме най-сетне...“ (Konstantinov 2005: 85).
“I lunged on a panic, wondering how I was going to show up with Bai Ganyo at the Deshovka
and how I was going to excuse such an unjustifiable act. I‟d have to lie. I saw that it would be
impossible to get rid of him. After all, it was only a matter of a few days, and like it or not, I
had better resign myself to the situation. And Bai Ganyo kept following me; he grumbled all
the way but left off his bullying talk and began in a minor key. “Listen, Bai Vasil, wait a little,
can‟t you, please, Bai Vasil? After all, we‟re Bulgarians.” (Konstantinov 2010: 80).
Дивата орда от пияни изверги нахлу в двора на училището. Боже! Колко грубост, колко
арогантност, колко тъпа свирепост в тези изпъкнали кръвясали очи, в тези бабаитски
движения, в тези провокаторски погледи!... Бай Ганьо, съпровождан от свитата си,
която грубо му отваряше път, възлезе по стълбите и се вмъкна в училищния салон, при
бюрото (Konstantinov 2005: 129).
“The wild horde of drunken monsters poured into the school courtyard. My God! What
crudeness, what arrogance, what mindless ferocity in those bulging, bloodshot eyes, in those
bullying gestures, in those aggressive looks! Bai Ganyo, accompanied by his retinue, who
forced a path for him, went up the stairs and pushed his way into the main hall of the school,
near the polling place” (Konstantinov 2010: 119).
As one can see from the translations into English by a team of the best American scholars
engaged in Bulgarian studies, in context it is not that difficult to understand what is at stake in
the narrated episodes in using the translational equivalent of blustering or bully. Conceptually
the correspondences look acceptable – we speak at a certain level of abstraction about
universals of meaning as far as interpersonal relationships are at stake. The problem still
remains in terms of how the bullying in question is displayed even if we have a concept that
matches the majority of the referred cases along the lines of “someone who uses strength or
power to frighten or hurt someone who is weaker” (Longman 2005). In the latter definition
we do not find the pretending aspect, the crude and arrogant way it is supposed to be done, as
well as the cultural-specific peculiarity of the displays that are part of the Ottoman heritage.
The discrepancy can be further illustrated by pointing out that the standard way to translate
bully back into Bulgarian is грубиян „rude man, churl“, but not бабаит(ин) (cf. PONS
2005a; 2005b).
We encounter too the problem of translational asymmetry when we use blustering as
equivalent and not only in cases of displays of bad manners, but also of other aspects of the
behavior of бабаит(ин). Bluster means “to speak in a loud, angry way, that is not really very
impressive” (Longman 2005) or “to talk in an aggressive or threatening way, but with little
effect” (OUP 2005), or “to talk or act with noisy swaggering threats” (Merriam-Webster
online). As one can see from the definitions, blustering can be interpreted in different ways in
English itself. The one from Merriam-Webster comes closer to the meaning implied in
Bulgarian as far as the swaggering aspects of the behavior of бабаит(ин) in his threatening
displays is concerned. Unlike the interpretation from OUP (2005), the bullying in Bulgarian is
quite predominantly dependent on nonverbal cues, as one can see from the description in
example (68). Even more to the point, the British aspect of the meaning “threatening, but not
really impressive and with little effect” is not as much the point in the meaning of the word in
Bulgarian (while it can be implied by the use in certain contexts). The accent instead is on the
aspect of pretending to be a physically strong and aggressive man (that are a matter of display
that may be found arrogant or threatening depending on the circumstances) that will most
probably turn out not to be really the case if/when it comes to real challenge/fight/combat.
The discrepancies in the interpretations of the meanings of the words in Bulgarian and
English when it comes to translation of бабаит(ин) can be compensated by the contexts of
use, because in each individual case the situations described help envisage what is at stake.
This is especially the case when it comes to comparison with European-style manners to
behave in good society and at least to certain degree when we have displays of brutal
aggressiveness of a mob style during social interaction, as far again as the referent example is
of European style how to carry out in a civilized way, e.g., elections in the case in (68) above.
What is missing instead and cannot be compensated by any means in English (or German, or
Russian) translation is the reference to the cultural example that was borrowed in Bulgarian
itself from the Ottoman Turkish culture namely what it is like to be a “true” бабаит(ин). And
it is exactly this backward reference that is at stake in using the Turkish loan for the purpose
(otherwise there are native Bulgarian words both for bully “грубиян, побойник” and
blustering “самохвалство”). It is from this point of view that no compensation is possible.
Bulgarians became accustomed so much to thе way of interpretation of this loan along
the lines Aleko Konstantinov introduced – from aggravated negative to emphatically
ambivalent – that even they find it sometimes hard to understand authentically the usage of
Zachari Stoyanov in terms of the nature of the intercultural conflict during the time of the
April uprising of 1876. As far as the translation into English of Zachari Stoyanov‟s work is
concerned and especially of the Turkisms used there, this is supposed to mean that it offers
harder challenges compared even to Aleko Konstantinov and still waits for its dedicated
translator. Such a rendering would also contribute to the proper interpretation what was
implied in the way of use of the Turkisms in the work of Aleko Konstantinov himself as a
culture-specific background to be juxtaposed to the European example. Otherwise the full
scale of the culture-specific position of the main hero of Bai Ganyo between Ottoman and
European culture remains outside of the scope of any presentation that is not burdened with
explanatory apparatus more voluminous than the original work.
5.2.2. Рая or why the Ottoman rule was a yoke
The place of the Bulgarian рая throughout the Ottoman yoke remained effectively the same –
that of serfs – independently of all the attempts to reorganize the Ottoman empire during the
age of the reforms giving them nominally a status of millet on a par with the Turks after the
Hatisherif of 1839 and the Hatihumayun of 1856. It is true that, compared to serfs e.g., in
Russia, the рая were better off in terms of standard of life (cf. Stoyanov 1977: 224 cited in
example 33 below), but we are talking here about their status in terms of civil rights in real
life, but not according to the fermans of the ruling Ottoman sultans between 1839 and 1878.
In order to appreciate the meaning of the word рая it must be juxtaposed at least to
бабаит(ин) (cf. above) and пехливан(ин) (cf. Stamenov 2011: 486-494). The juxtaposition
in question will help us envisage in more realistic way the nature of the Bulgarian-Ottoman
conflict. As a point of departure we may note that in Turkish up to the present day we find the
following interpretations of the meaning of this word:
Reaya същ., ар., остар. Поданици; ист. рая, немюсюлманско население (в Османската
империя); прен. християни (Dobrev 2009).
Reaya Subjects, esp., non-Moslem subjects of the Ottoman government (Hony and Iz 1984).
Reaya 1. hist., nicht-isl. Untertanen pl. im Osm. Reich. 2. veralt. Christ(-in) (Steuerwald 1988).
Reaya ист. 1. Райя (поданные сультана не мусульмане). 2. Христиане (Baskakov et al. 1977).
The common denominator in the definitions above is the descriptive historical meaning of the
word formulated with certain variations as “the non-Moslem subjects of the Ottoman
government”. If we compare this meaning with the ones available in the Bulgarian
dictionaries we will immediately pick up the difference formulated in its second sense, as
presented in BER (1971-), BTR (1994) and repeated in GHS (2002) “submissive, servile
population, population of slaves”:
Рая 1. Стадо. Де ходи чюмата, та си не сбира раята? 2. Така ся наричат християните, що са
подвластни на турците (Gerov 1975).
Рая Немохамеданско население в някогашна Турция; прен. овчедушен робски народ; стадо
(BER 1971-).
Рая 1. Немохамеданско население в някогашна Турция. 2. прен. Безропотен, покорен, робски
народ. Ний не сме вече рая покорна. Вазов. 3. Отделни лица от това население, народ.
Сюлейман безумний сочи върха пак и вика: „Търчете! Тамо са раите!” Вазов (BTR 1994).
Рая ист. Немохамеданското население, което е покорено от турците и включено в границите
на Турската империя (Burov et al. 2000).
Рая Немохамеданско население, което е покорено от турците и включено в границите на
турската империя (Krasteva 2003).
Рая 1. осман. ист. Немюсюлманско население. 2. Безропотен, покорен робски народ (GHS
2002).
It is interesting to note that Gerov (1975) ascribed to this word the sense of “herd, flock” as
the first one, while in BER (1971-) the same sense is identified as derivative and figurative.
The second sense of рая in Gerov (1975) also speaks for itself: “name of Christians that are
subordinate to Turks”. It is this interpretation that is repeated with certain variations in BER
(1971-), BTR (1994) and Burov et al. (2000).
If we compare the two senses – the historical “Ott. hist. non-Muslim population;
rayah” to the de facto one “submissive, servile population” in GHS (2002) – we may start to
appreciate the point that the Ottoman historical meaning belongs to the past, while the one
that found support in the history of the Bulgarian language was and remains congruent with
the overall evaluation of the Ottoman rule in the Bulgarian history. In order correctly to
understand the nature of this meaning we must orient ourselves what was the position of this
population during the Ottoman times. Рая lived in permanent fear for its life and possessions;
it worked in an obedient and resigned way; it was the subject of exploitation and harassment
by the Ottoman administracy and the local Muslim population and thus fully dependent on
their мерхаметлик “benevolence”. The position of рая can be appropriately illustrated with
a citation from the autobiographical work of Sofroni Vrachanski (1739-1813) Житие и
страдание грешнаго Софрония “Life and Suffering of the Sinful Sofroni”:
(30)
И той час мя фатиха четворица и заведоха ме при пашата. Ала сас каковий страх! И
попита ме:
– Защо бягаш бре, кой тя гони?
И аз му рекох:
– Ефенди, ний есми рая, всякоги боязливи есми като зайци. И като вдигна ти чауша,
убояхме ся и бягаме (Vrachanski 1992: 20).
“At this very moment four men caught me a brought me to the pasha. I cannot tell you how
frightened I felt at that time! And he asked me:
– You fool, why are running away, who‟s after you?
And I responded to him:
– Sir, we are , we are рая, we like rabbits abide all the time in fear. When you called the
guard, we became afraid and ran away” (transl. mine; M. S.).
The first of the two main traits of рая, as already mentioned, is that it lives in constant
fear for her life, for the fate of her family and possessions. This fear has taken firm root
during the centuries of Ottoman rule and became a problem of mentality whose solution is
represented in the Journal of Bulgarian Uprisings (Stoyanov 1977) as the historical drama of
the Bulgarian people that depicts their way of transforming themselves from serfs to citizen.
The second trait of рая consists in its dedication to work in obedient and submissive way.
This trait applied both to the peasantry and craftsmen. Dedicated work may look like a virtue
but with the above mentioned caveat to be taken into account. It found its epitome in the
proverbs and sayings coded in the folklore, e.g.:
(31)
По-добре да служиш на добър господар, отколкото да бъдеш сам господар. (Slaveykov
2003: 555).
“Better serve to a good master than being a master yourself”
The voivode Panayot Hitov acknowledged the relationship between the slave‟s
psychology of рая with her “workaholism” when he wrote in 1873 in the following way:
(32)
Фанариотската калимавка и турската тояга са убили българския народ дотолкова, щото
той е загубил своето човеческо лице и заприличал е на машина, която оре и копае само
да насити другиго (Hitov 1962: 27).
“Phanariot‟s kamelaukion and Turkish bludgeon shaped the Bulgarian people in such a way
that it lost its human face and looks more on a par with a machine that ploughs and hoes only
to appease somebody else” (transl. mine; M. S.).
The nature of рая‟s position is asserted even in a more forceful way by Zachari Stoyanov:
(33)
[…] допреди руските войни българският народ е живял под турското владичество
сравнително много по-добре, отколкото когато се захванали да се грижат за неговите
съдбини различни християнски държави. Убит и нравствено, и политически, нашият
народ, докаран до най-последната ниска степен на позорен рая, той не е възбуждал
никаква вражда, никакво подозрение и страх за въстание в очите на своите владетели
(Stoyanov 1977: 224).
[…] das bulgarische Volk vor den Russisch-Türkischen Kriegen under derselben Oberhoheit
verhältnismässig sehr viel besser lebte als später, wo verschiedene christliche Staaten sich
bemüssigt fühlten, sich seiner anzunehmen. Solange es moralisch wie politisch völlig am
Boden lag, in den tiefsten Stand einer verachteten Rajah getrieben, erregte es keinerlei
Feindschaft, keinerlei Argwohn oder Furcht vor einem Aufstand bei seinen Beherrschern
(Stojanow 1978: 221).
Under the circumstances the relationships between the ruling class (the Ottomans) and
ethnos (Turks) and the рая could be amicable only as far as the latter were supposed to be
obedient and submissive:
(34)
(35)
Например на никое българско кавене човек като мене [Джендо], бос и окъсан, не
можеше да седне редом с другите посетители; а турците в това отношение не са така.
Напротив, тия даже по-голямо предпочитание са готови да окажат на един беден рая,
отколкото на добре облечения, когото презират още, че ходи от тях по-салтанатлия.
Ето защо аз ударих по турските кавенета да търся прехрана (Stoyanov 1977: 55).
Zum Beispiel konnte sich in keiner bulgarischen Kaffeestube ein Mann wie ich, barfuss und
abgerissen, neben die anderen Besucher setzen. Die Türken waren in dieser Hinsicht
grosszügiger, ja sie begegneten einem armen Rajah zuvorkommender als einen
gutgekleideten, den sie geradezu verachteten, weil er womöglich in grösserem Luxus lebte als
sie selbst. Deshalb suchte ich mein Heil in den türkischen Lokalen (Stojanow 1978: 60).
Много са тия [турците] наивни. Щом чуят, че им се молиш, че признаваш своето
ничтожество на рая, а тях наричаш всесилни и пр., чувствата на някакво си
благородство се проявяват, което ние, българите, не притежаваме. Но с едно условие:
никаква гордост, надменност или достойнство да не бъдат заявени (Stoyanov 1977: 773).
Sie [die Türken] verhielten sich in dieser Hinsicht erstaunlich naiv. Sobald man als Bittsteller
auftrat, sobald man seine eigene Nichtigkeit als Rajah anerkannte, sie hingegen allmächtig
nannte und so weiter, erwachte in ihnen ein Edelmut, wie wir Bulgaren ihn nicht besassen.
Vorbedingung war jedoch, dass man keinerlei Stolz, Überheblichkeit oder Würde zeigte
(Stojanow 1978: 749).
The examples speak by themselves about the nature of the relationship between masters and
slaves – “no pride, haughtiness or dignity”. This is the price the рая should pay in order to be
on good terms with its masters and in order to expect from them Edelmut “noblemindedness”.
Fearfullness, slave‟s obedience and the readiness of рая without complaints to
undergo any humiliations drove the “new” Bulgarians into frenzy. Stoyan Zaimov (18531932), for example, wrote in his voluminous review of the first two volumes of the Journal of
Z. Stoyanov with sincere abomination about the slave psychology he faced when he made
attempts to turn restive his compatriots in Vratsa against the Ottomans during the April
uprising:
[...] [Стоянов] рисува подлия образ на покорната рая, която вместо да помага на
бунтовниците, предава ги в ръцете на зверовете-черкези, и за да отнема от тях
по 300 гроша, хвърля ги в балканската яма (Zaimov 2004: 339).
[...] [Stoyanov] presents us the vile image of the submissive rayah that instead of
helping insurgents, turns them over into the hands of Cherkess beasts and in order to
appropriate 300 pennies from them, throws them into the Balkan pit (transl. mine; M.
S.)
Finally, the reaction of Turks to the рая after the rebellion took place was also selftelling (as presented by Stoyanov during the discussions of bashibazouks he witnessed during
his service in the Ottoman jails):
(36)
– Дай боже така да бъде, но мен ми се не вярва в действителността на такава една
патриотическа заповед [да бъдат изколени всички каракалпаклии петковци, т.е.
българите] – забележи съмнително Мустан чауш. – Как ще да се реши султанът да
(37)
изколи своята рая, когато тя му е като сагмал крави? Кой ще да поддържа тогава сто и
толкова милиони аскер? Кой ще да храни и облича нас? Тук се трябва по-тънък ум,
пехливанъм – свърши чаушинът.
– Царският диван е издирил и се е уверил, че българите не можат да му бъдат вече рая
– възрази [Хасан] Пехливанинът. – Тефтерът на комитите, за който казват очевидци,
че бил голям като вратата и имал тежина 400 оки, е в ръцете на правителството. В тоя
тефтер били записани всичките попове, даскали и чорбаджии, за които е издаден вече
илямът да се бесят (Stoyanov 1977: 671).
“Allah geb‟s dass es so sei, aber ich kann an einen solchen patriotischen Befehl [alle Bulgaren
zu töten] nicht glauben ”, bemerkte Mustan Tschausch zweifelnd. “Wie könnte der Sultan sich
entschliessen, seine Rajah abzuschlachten, die doch für ihn so etwas wie eine Herde
Milchkühe ist? Wer soll den für den Unterhalt seiner Millionen Soldaten aufkommen? Wer
soll uns ernähren und kleiden? Da muss man schon klüger zu Werke gehen, Pechliwan.”
“Der Diwan ist zu der Überzeugung gelangt, dass er die Bulgaren nicht mehr als Rajah
betrachten kann”, erwiderte der Angeredete. “Er hat das Geschäftsbuch der Komiten im
Besitz, das laut Augenzeugenberichten so gross ist wie eine Tür und vierhundert Oka wiegt.
Über all die Popen, Lehrer und Tschorbadshis, die da auftauchen, ist schon das Todesurteil
gefällt, sie werden allesamt gehenkt.” (Stojanow 1978: 646-647).
Моите водители от уважение към бабаитлъка не му казваха нищо, само повтаряха
сегиз-тогиз да ме охарактеризирват, че съм бил „серсемин“, дума, която по онова време
кореспондираше с „невинен“, „безвреден“ и „вярна рая“ (Stoyanov 1977: 725).
Meine Begleiter respektierten ihn als tapferen Mann und hielten sich zurück. Sie versuchten
lediglich ein paarmal, ihm begreiflich zu machen, dass ich ein „Sersemin“ sei, was eigentlich
soviel wie „einfältiger Kopf“ bedeutet, damals aber mit den Begriffen „unschuldig“,
„harmlos“ und „treuergebener Untertan“ korrespondierte (Stojanow 1978: 700).
The slave position of Bulgarians does not mean that they were represented in the local
cultural tradition exclusively as innocent victims, as one can see from the presentation above.
The acceptance of the рая position had its psychological consequences that were by no means
complimentary. Thus рая is shown as incapable of merciful deeds (merhametlik) toward the
compatriots that risked their life for attaining independence, and, even more abominably, were
ready to collaborate with the Turks in becoming betrayers of their own kin. Most remarkable
in this respect is again the comment of Zachari Stoyanov, where he juxtaposes the kindness of
representatives of other ethnic groups to the treasons of Bulgarians in the Balkan mountains
after the uprising was crushed:
(38)
Каракачанските овчари (куцовласите), които са в изобилие по планината лятно време,
твърде кавалерски се отнесоха с бунтовниците, като че тия последните за тяхно добро
да бяха въстанали. И турците даже не отстъпваха от да не покажат своя мерхамет...
„[...] Той [турчин-говедар в планината] отговори, че ни е познал [че Никола Обретенов и
Савата Пенев са комити], преди да му се обадим, и ни покани учтиво да насядаме.
Свари ни по едно горчиво кафе, което зае мястото на небесна манна, а после се
разпореди и за ядене. На тръгвание, когато всинца се изправихме напредя му да му
благодарим като на баща и Войновски извади да му даде една лира за доброто
гостоприемство, то той отблъсна парите и каза, че не е ханджия и че като ни е
нахранил, изпълнил си е мусулманската обязаност. После ни показа пътя, като ни
предупреди где имало башибозуци и где не. Българите не постъпяха така. Освен
предателството, ако някой измежду тях се намереше по-добър, той питаше най-напред
колко пари ще му заплатим за труда!!...” При разказа на двамата приятели аз ще да
прибавя това, че не познавам ни едного бунтовника, който да не е бил издаден от
българи (Stoyanov 1977: 553–554).
Dagegen haben sich die Karakatschanen (Kuzowalachen), die im Sommer in grosser Zahl als
Schäfer in insere Berge kommen, den Rebellen gegenüber sehr anständig verhalten, gerade so,
als hätten diese den Aufstand für sie geführt. Ja es gab sogar Türken, die es sich nicht nehmen
liessen, Gutes zu tun.
„[...] er [ein alter Türke] habe uns [Nikola Obretenow und Sawata Penew] ohnehin gleich als
solche [als Komiten] erkannt, und forderte und höfflich zum Niedersitzen auf. Er bereitete uns
einen starken Kaffee, der uns wie Himmelsmanna vorkam, und brachte auch etwas zu essen.
Beim Aufbruch dankten wir ihm alle wie einem Vater. Woinowski wollte ihm eine Lira geben
für die gute Bewirtung, doch er wies das Geld zurück und entgegnete, er sei kein Schankwirt,
sondern habe nur seine Muselmanenpflicht erfüllt. Dan zeigte er uns noch den Weg, wobei er
uns auch sagte, wo Baschibosuken versteckt lagen. So verhielten sich unsere Bulgaren nicht.
Die Anständigeren unter ihnen, die uns nicht geradezu verrieten, fragten zumindest erst nach
dem Lohn für ihre Mühe.“ Diesem Bericht meiner beiden Freunde kann ich hinzufügen, dass
ich keinen den Türken ausggelieferten Aufständischen kenne, den nicht ein Bulgare verraten
hätte (Stojanow 1978: 536).
The point in (38) is not to generalize over the claim in the last sentence (as already done on
certain occasions) that Bulgarians were worse compared to other nationalities, but that this is
an immanent component of the slave psychology from which the Bulgarian insurgents
fiercely fought to get rid of as the most important component of the Ottoman cultural heritage
for Bulgarians. You cannot expect from slaves nobility, mercy and other virtues of members
of a free nation. This is the main reason why the Ottoman rule was a yoke – not just because
certain population was treated by Ottomans as slaves, but because it acquired the
corresponding mentality and led a way of life determined by it.
From the discussion of the meaning of рая in Bulgarian it becomes evident in which
sense the qualification Ottoman yoke fits the situation of Bulgarians during the Ottoman rule.
This was and is not a matter of negatively laden metaphor. It was a matter of status quo of
double bind situation of the Bulgarian people to which there are no analogies in other empires
in Europe during that time. Even in the case of the Russian empire with its крепостничество
“serfhood” up to 1861, the situation was unlike that of Bulgarian рая – both for better in
certain aspects and for worse in other ones (for comparison of the ways Bulgarians were
treated by Ottomans compared to serfs in Russia cf. Stoyanov 1977: 226). All the attempts
today for historical rapprochement via changes of names, e.g., Ottoman rule for Ottoman yoke
in the history textbooks, should take into account the historical reality to which the word
usage refers to. From the overview of the meaning and the ways of use of рая before Bulgaria
achieved independence it becomes clear why the Ottoman rule was and is appropriately
qualified as a “yoke”. This is an attribution that was and is, first and foremost, self-critical.
We can find further corroborating evidence when we juxtapose its content to that of the words
that were conceived during the Ottoman times as its antonyms, like бабаит and
пехливан(ин). Only after correctly understanding the nature of the Ottoman system of
government we will manage to interpret in appropriate way the position of Bulgarians in it.
Contemporary seekers of historical rapprochement via linguistic engineering attack with zeal
as a sign of bad manners the use by the Bulgarians of the collocation “Ottoman yoke” for the
time Bulgaria was under Ottoman rule. This expression, however, codes quite aptly the
difference of being a non-Muslim subject of this empire. It is part of the national history and
culture and negating it means to camouflage what was at stake, how it is supposed to be
remembered and, most remarkably, how it was solved. In this respect, it is remarkable also to
notice that the translator into English of a selection from the Journal M. W. Potter had no
problem at all hundred years ago in qualifying the Ottoman rule in Bulgaria as a “yoke” (cf.
Stoyanoff 1913: 2). After reading from Stoyanov and translating him he apparently found it as
the natural way to represent the situation of Bulgarians under the Ottomans.
In retrospect, the qualification of the Ottoman dominion over Bulgaria as a “yoke”
may acquire different meaning, depending on the perspective taken. It may be interpreted as a
way to claim that Bulgarians were not in charge of their own destiny during the time of
Ottoman rule, cannot be held responsible for what happened, and thus this period forms a sort
of “empty” or “estranged time” in the national history. This possibility was indeed exploited.
The present-day Bulgarians envisage the Ottoman rule as a period of time that is punctuated
by a couple of historical events between 1396 and 1763, mostly related to vague
reminiscences that certain uprisings might have happened. In terms of presence of history for
what matters today it is effectively empty of consequences and significance. The Ottoman
rule attains the meaning of a “yoke” as soon as the first attempts to reclaim independence
came into question at the time of the Bulgarian Renaissance, i.e., what matters for history
acquires its significance in terms of fight, of conflict.
The other popular meaning of “yoke” is the one that lately became the subject of
criticism mainly by foreign advisers how to reach a rapprochement in treating shared history
by Bulgarians and contemporary Turks – both in Turkey and as a minority in Bulgaria itself.
Their point is that “yoke” is a metaphor that implies a false representation of the historical
reality in picturing Bulgarians as innocent victims of cruel conquerors that kept them almost
five centuries in slavery. This is a sort of cliché that one can indeed find in certain Bulgarian
textbooks even up to the present day and its naïve and/or propaganda oriented garb does not
fit the multifaceted reality of the relationships between Bulgarians, Ottoman authorities and
ethnic Turks for such an extended historical period. Still, this picture offers if not the whole
than the most important aspect of the truth about the situation of Bulgarians as serf ethnos
during the Ottoman rule – if not in its elementary garb, than in terms of service population of
tax-payers for the benefit of the ruling class of Ottomans. In other words, it was a matter of
straight exploitation based on religious, ethnic and estate affiliation.
There is a third meaning that can be attributed to “yoke” that provides, as a matter of
fact, the best reason to use this qualification instead of “rule”. As far as I am aware, it was
never taken into account during the debate on the subject. It can be understood in terms of
direct analogy with the classical example from the Old Testament where Jews speak about
their “Egyptian slavery” before they revolted under the leadership of Moses and left Egypt. I
think that this is basically the meaning (without the religious aura of predestination) that
became integral part of the Bulgarian culture that can be found in the works of authors like
Ivan Vazov with his Under the Yoke, in Zachari Stoyanov‟s Journal of Bulgarian Uprisings,
in Christo Botev‟s poetry, essays and articles, etc. Attacking it means challenging a core
component of Bulgarian cultural identity in terms of the main change that took place in it
during the last one and a half century, as very briefly sketched above. The evidence in this
respect is overwhelming to any scholar ready to give credence to the empirical material
available from this period.
What is most difficult to imagine is how that happened, i.e., the human dimension of
the radical breakup of the Bulgarian from the Ottoman culture, as it became enacted during a
couple of decades around the April uprising of 1876 and the attainment of independence by
Bulgaria. The transubstantiation from slaves to citizen was embodied in a culture-specific way
by the most radical new Bulgarians of the time, e.g., Vasil Levski, Christo Botev and Zachari
Stoyanov. While they are considered founders of the new Bulgarian identity and culture, what
is not fully appreciated is what that was supposed to mean if they were born рая “slaves
according to their mentality” and developed into personalities that had nothing at all to do
anymore in any sensible way not only with slavery, but with the Ottoman culture in general. It
is in the life and work of those leaders of the Bulgarian national revival that we can discern
what it really meant to discard the past in toto, to annul its cultural value in an embodied way,
even if vestiges of the Ottoman heritage of some significance can still be found under certain
garbs up to the present day in everyday use and, more remarkably, in the vernacular
background and underground of the Bulgarian culture (for discussion of this most difficult to
appreciate point what is the human dimension of the breakup with the Ottoman culture cf.
Stamenov 2011: 276-343, where it is considered taking as example the personality and
literary works of Zachari Stoyanov).
6.
The status of Turkisms as rigid negative superlatives in Bulgarian
A remarkable trait of Turkisms that remain to the present day in use in the low colloquial and
vernacular Bulgarian consists in their potential in many cases to express the strongest negative
meaning and evaluation possible in this language. This peculiar predestination is associated
with Turkisms in a quite systematic way, unlike any other set of loans in Bulgarian in its
whole history. We cannot find anything even approximately comparable for loans from
Greek, Romanian or Serb language (i.e., the languages of the other neighbors of Bulgaria),
and what to talk about other languages of Europe.
I qualify the negative superlatives in addition as “rigid” because the superlativity in
question, as a rule, is impossible to cancel with linguistic means, e.g., by negation,
modification in a compensating positive direction or through diminutive formation, as we will
see from the discussion that follows. As far as their superlative status is concerned, it is
supposed to characterize them as the “strongest” means of expression in Bulgarian compared
to all other synonyms available on the subject. For the concept of “human face”, for example,
we have at least seven different words in Bulgarian. The one that is used neutrally by default
in the literary language is лице. In literary Bulgarian we have also the more eloquent or poetic
possibilitу to use лик „countenance“ which also is a native Bulgarian word. The other
synonyms that are available for this concept are loans. Three of them are borrowed from
Greek – физиономия, муцуна и мутра (from It. through Gr.). The first of them today is an
internationalism; when referring to human face in Bulgarian it is in use in the colloquial
language; conventional diminutive from it is not available, e.g., *физиономийка; there are
ample opportunities, though to associate it with augmenting modifiers in both negative and
positive direction, e.g., гадна физиономия “contemptible face” vs. грейнала от щастие
физиономия “face shining with happiness”. Муцуна literally means “maul” and is used
figuratively for human face, but with no strong negative connotation necessarily implied, as
one can witness from the conventionally accepted two diminutive forms – муцунка and
муцка – as well as readily accepted collocations via modifying augmentatives in both positive
and negative direction. Мутра, instead, is invariably associated with negative meaning, either
literally “1. mug, phiz, pan, dial. 2. grimace, wry face” (Atanasova et. al. 1988) or figuratively
in the colloquial Bulgarian today with the meaning of “goon”. It has no conventional
diminutive, e.g., in the form of *мутричка, and accepts modification only in the negative
direction without however achieving the status of a negative superlative. For “human face”
there is also морда – a loan from Russian, lit. “maul” – which in Bulgarian is used with the
meaning of “rude maul (referring to human face)”. A diminutive ?мордичка is theoretically
possible but not conventional in use; from the point of view of semantic congruence
modification is acceptable in the negative direction only without again reaching the level of a
negative superlative. This status is reserved on a permanent basis exclusively to two loans
from Turkish – зурла and сурат. There are no stronger means in Bulgarian to express with a
negative attitude a meaning associable with “human face”. Using them in addressing one‟s
interlocutor during face-to-face interaction is pushing it to the limit where the next step is to
respond with fight-flight reaction.
Зурла literally denotes “maul of a swine” and, if used figuratively to refer to a human
face, its effect is not difficult to predict. The strength of the associated connotation is such that
makes further augmentation as a rule superfluous or pleonastic. If used with full performative
force, it is practically impossible to form from it a sensible diminutive; if one stretches one‟s
imagination to the limits, one can envisage the possibilities of “quasi-poetic” diminutive
application with the effect of coining an occasionalism insinuating, e.g., strong squeamish
tenderness. But this is still not enough. Even worse is the situation with сурат. In Bulgarian it
means exclusively “face of a total degenerate, a monster”. For such a creature to have a
human-like facade looks under the circumstances like contradictio in adiecto. Adding
modifying augmentatives would be superfluous; a formation of a diminutive also seems
impossible or implausible. Again stretching one‟s imagination to the limits in looking for
meaningfulness, one can envisage the use of суратче for the faces of children in “Adam‟s
family” movie or in the real world for a child that behaves in most notorious way, i.e.,
meaning “face of son/daughter/kin of monsters”. Otherwise, literally speaking, сурат could
righteously be ascribed to a person himself represented with a negative superlative, e.g. to a
катил “cold-blooded merciless killer”. As mentioned above, such superlatives also behave in
peculiar ways under negation. Thus *Лицето му не е сурат “His face is not (like) сурат”
makes practically no sense, while Той не е катил does not means “He is not a killer” but
“He is not blood-thirsty killer”, e.g. “He (may have) killed once or twice (because he was
jealous, etc.)”. The scope of negation of negative superlatives looks from this point of view
unlike the positive ones, or at least a subject of higher and/or more unpredictable variability
(this point requires further detailed investigation).
The effect illustrated here for “face,” applies in a systematic way in the sense that in a
set of synonyms for concepts related to the world of human affairs, if among them there is a
Turkish loan, it will occupy, as a rule, the place associated with the most negative meaning
and connotation. In many cases this place is to be identified with a rigid negative superlative
(according to its meaning and in terms of the semantic tests for negation and possibilities to
have diminutives and augmentatives). Thus the association with the most arrogant, rude and
vulgar expressions in Bulgarian becomes attached, as far as colloquial and vernacular
language is concerned (as loans of this type usually are not in use in the literary language),
with the means of expression borrowed first and foremost from Turkish as a language of
origin.
The trend in question is ascertained, e.g., by the extensive analysis of the meanings
and ways of use in Bulgarian during the last one and half century of the semantic groups for
derogatory qualifications of women (Stamenov 2011: 686-712) and for peculiar male
characters (Stamenov 2011: 638-686). As far as Turkish loans are still in use for qualifying
female characters and behavioral patterns associated with them, strong impression makes the
existence of a compact group that consists of rigid negative superlatives in the low colloquial
and mostly in the vernacular language. This group includes the following words: гювендия,
джадия, уруспия, мастия, пачавра, брантия and шафрантия. Their semantic structure
can be modeled at least partly by the means of componential analysis that includes in each
individual case in different combinations the following semes: 1. “disgustingly ugly”; 2. “of
advanced age, envisaged in the most unfavorable angle, as far as life functions and sex appeal
come into question”; 3. “shamelessly promiscuous to the worst degree possible”; and 4. “rude,
arrogant to the utmost degree”. This set of semes as a whole could be interpreted as
Gesamtbedeutung of the group, but may not be attributed wholesale to any of the words
without qualifications/restrictions. Thus шафрантия is an exception to a considerable
degree, as far as it may refer to young and beautiful girl or woman, while semes 3. and 4.
apply on a full scale for her. This makes, however, the meaning attached to it even more
impressive because it allows the combination of shameless promiscuity and rude arrogance
with youth and beauty. Брантия, as far as its inner form coming from Turkish “fallow field
or vineyard” is still glimpsed at, means figuratively “old hag, disgustingly ugly, usually
elderly woman (and the interest in her, for that reason, is like that for a fallow field or
vineyard)”. It should be pointed out that semes 3. and 4. may be associated, in addition, with
it in terms, e.g., of a conventional implicature (because this is to be expected according to our
knowledge of the world, if we assume that the other three semes are fit for the purposes of
naming certain woman in this way). While the inner form for брантия may be still glimpsed
at, it is completely forgotten for гювендия, уруспия and шафрантия. Faint memory may
associate джадия with “witch” as far as the witches are usually envisaged physically as
“elderly ugly women; old hags”. This circumstance makes the latter word comparable to
брантия while at the same time less associable with the semes 3. and 4. The inner form is
more “visible” up to the present day for мастия whose literal meaning is “stray female dog”;
in this case, the figurative meaning is expanded in the direction of “stray bitch; loose to the
utmost degree woman”.
As far as augmentation with modifiers is concerned, we have variable possibilities
related to each individual word from the “female” group. Thus, we can find in use expressions
like дърта брантия “old (old and ugly hag)” where we have, at face value, a pleonasm but
one that is tolerated for the sake of emphatically putting accent on one of the semes coded in
the word itself (having in mind that дърт itself means “coll., derog. old”. In other cases,
however, the same qualification дърта may be added in a sensible way making clear that
some seme that usually is associated with a word from this group is supposed to be cancelled
and the opposite is to be taken to be the case. Thus for example, if we say дърта
шафрантия, this will result in blocking the possibility on this occasion for the word to refer
to a woman that may be young and pretty (while behaving in an utterly shameless
promiscuous way). This same modifier дърта, however, will be considered pleonastic par
excellence if an attempt is made to attach it to джадия. If we check the possibilities of
collocation of these same loans with a strongly positive modifier like красива “beautiful”, we
will see that it can be used in sensible way only with шафрантия. The laws of semantic
congruence in forming negative superlatives were never studied in a systematic way and
would require for their proper treatment additions to the theory of lexical semantics (for a
nonreductive discussion of the relationships between language and emotion as a separate tier
in modeling lexical semantics in general and lexical congruence in particular cf. Stamenov, in
preparation).
We may be happy with the results of the semantic analysis of the nature of negatively
superlative meanings attached of the set of derogatory Turkish loans referring to women, but
as soon as we choose another group – for peculiar male characters and associated with them
social roles – we will find out that we cannot use the strategy of analysis applied before
without significant additions and modifications. This group consists from (but is not restricted
exclusively to) the following loans:
Ахмак coll. Simpleton, fool.
Бунак coll., vitup. Dotard, imbecile.
Диване coll. Fool, simpleton.
Маскара 1.coll. Rotter, stinker. 2. Jоcker, buffoon. 3. Laughing-stock. 4. dial. Masquerader in
Bulgarian “kukeri” carnival.
Мискин(ин) coll., vitup. Disgusting person, slovenly person.
Серсем(ин) coll. Fool, simpleton.
Тепегьоз indecl. adj. or noun, coll. Cheeky, brazen (person).
Урсуз(ин) coll. Bad, damned, base person.
Шашкън(ин) coll. Fool, noddy.
Their interpretation in English is provided according to GHS (2002). An inspection of their
definitions may confer the impression that they do not look like a regular semantic group, i.e.,
they seem to possess rather heterogeneous meanings. Some of them appear to be complete
synonyms, e.g., ахмак, серсем and диване. Шашкън(ин) may still be considered a partial
synonym, but others seem widely to deviate in terms of their meanings, compared to the four
words just mentioned. And this is indeed the case, unless one identifies in appropriate way the
common denominator they share – being rigid negative superlatives from the point of view of
the strength of emotion and attitude they are supposed to express and evoke, as well as in
terms of the peculiarity of their meanings compared to their Bulgarian synonyms – they name,
according to their degree of complexity, not single human traits but human characters, e.g.,
while a fool is characterized by foolishness, диване is a type of a person only one aspect of
whose nature can be characterized in the first approximation as being foolish. This peculiarity
calls into question the plausibility of all the interpretations in English of the words above, as
provided in GHS (2002). If they name not traits but characters, the first point to be made is
that the descriptions of meaning presented in the cited dictionary must be taken not as offering
alternatives, but as denoting cumulative combinations of such traits. Thus, урсуз(ин) means
not either “damned person” or “base person” but brings together in a mutually strengthening
way an emphatic evaluation/attitude with a set of characteristic properties “remarkably bad in
a special way = wicked + crusty + crabbed + bad-tempered person.” In a concrete context of
use a selection that offers the strongest possible combination of them (and possibly others)
may be taken as the one that is intended by the speaker in choosing a Turkism over an
expression in Bulgarian for the purpose. Thus the “aggravation” of meaning goes in both
directions – in terms of emotion and attitude, as well as from the point of view of the intended
meaning. This way of meaning formation presents us with a real challenge how to describe
the semantics and pragmatics of the set of words in question even if we compare them with
the previous one of female dysphemisms, because the latter was more clearly thematically
restricted and thus offered better opportunities to apply componential analysis. In the present
case, however, we see that we have to develop more nonconventional means of modeling and
description.
As one can see from the presentation of the meanings of урсуз(ин) et al. above, we
can handle the semantics of this group of rigid negative superlatives in combining a
component they all share – a functional correlate of the Gesamtbedeutung in terms of an
attitude marker – with a set of differentia specifica that distinguishes the meaning of each of
them. The peculiarity in this case is that they are, as a rule quite complex and prone to
“aggravating” interpretation to the highest degree possible under the circumstances of each
concrete use, itself triggered by the Gesamtbedeutung component. The latter itself may have
reference-oriented core or amounts to no more than a superlative attitudinal aspect, as we can
see in comparing female dysphemisms with male negative characters. This circumstance
contributes to the considerable “fluidity” of their meanings in terms of structure and
constitutive components, as well as shows how the very core of the linguistic meaning may
imply a fusion of elements that may be not only reference-oriented, but also emotion- and
attitude-based. Under these circumstances it should be obvious that the „standard‟ distribution
of meaning into denotation and connotation is supposed to fail in a regular way. All the
standard means of modeling and description from semantic theory are not enough in
describing the meaning and the potential of use of rigid negative superlatives. The same
criticism applies to the way of modeling in cognitive semantics, e.g., with image schemata
and radial categories (cf. Lakoff 1987).
An extensive analysis of all meanings of the words in the group for negative male
characters, applying the way of modeling sketched above, is provided in Stamenov (2011:
638-686). Here it will be enough to present how the meaning of one more word, the
picturesque for the Bulgarian ear шашкън(ин), may look like: „uniquely bad in a special
way = cracked + nutty + potty + noddy + stupefied + stunned + flabbergasted + wrongheaded + crotchety + shrewish + muddy + mazy + […] crackpot“. If we are not happy even
with this way of characterization of the word and want to have a full-scale non-reductive
explanation of its semantic potential in Bulgarian, we have to develop even more
sophisticated interpretation that must take into account additional circumstances, e.g., the
historical continuity in the way of its conceptualization, starting from its way of use in the
oldest registered Bulgarian proverbs and sayings. The continuity in question is displayed by
the congruence between the meaning of the Turkish etymon and the Bulgarian loan, unlike
many other cases when it comes to characterizing humans. The reason is to be found in the
way of its treatment in contemporary Turkish itself: „1. confused, perplexed, stunned,
amazed; 2. rude/rough, stupid, crack brain” (Dobrev 2009; translation from Bulgarian mine;
M. S.). The congruence is maintained because the Turkish etymon itself has negative
meaning. On the Bulgarian soil it became elaborated in a remarkable way from semantic point
of view in combining into one and thus aggravating the two senses of the Turkish word, as
well as in addition developing it into a superlative from the point of view of expressed
emotion and attitude.
In invigorating the inherited meaning this loan began to imply certain causal history
serving as explanation of the deviating behavior displayed by or expected from the person
referred to as шашкън(ин). The meaning that is supposed to provide the attributed causal
history has a complicated structure, because it implies at least two different possible reasons
for the abnormal behavior of the person whom we identify as шашкън(ин). First of them
imputes the deviating behavior to perplexing disorientation due to being stupefied and/or
stunned by something or someone. Unlike the normal case, however, when a person falls into
the trap of such embarrassing situation only from time to time, the individual in question
reacts in this way much more frequently, or in situations which would not normally be
considered perplexing. For this reason he looks and behaves as if stupefied, dumbfound
and/or stunned in a persistent manner. In other words, this pattern of reaction acquires the
status of characterologically determining his way of behaviing – as if he is stupefied and
stunned all the time in acting and interacting. The second imputed reason may be due to an
implied causal history that attributes to the person in question the inclination for frenzy due
not to the exceptional quality of a situation that may provoke such a reaction but to implied
psychopathological condition (being mad, crazy). The peculiar in this case is, again, that the
person in question is prone to react in such a frenzied way unpredictably in situations in
which a normal individual would not be expected to do that. Шашкънин is a person who
reacts as crack-brained either for the first, or for the second, or due to the combined effect of
both of the reasons provided above even in cases of minor problems or in situations
considered nonproblematic by all standards of normalcy.
Here the objection may be raised that such complicated causal histories look more like
artificially elaborated fabrications than as meanings to be attributed to single words. To
answer this objection, it is appropriate to point out that the degree of elaboration in such cases
is open-ended and the reason for this is the imperative imposed on words to be treated as
negative superlatives. If this is the case, we are supposed to pay attention why it was chosen,
but not another one from the set of possible Bulgarian synonyms. This is the trigger that
motivates the interpreter to look for more and more complex and peculiar scenarios not only
for шашкън(ин) but also for all other loans naming human negative characters in a
superlative way – on each occasion we are on a look in what way they express the worse than
the worst. More a native speaker of Bulgarian is aware of their true semantic potential, more
motivated s/he would be to use them on appropriate occasions. Under the pressure imposed by
the use of a superlative the speaker or hearer finds him/herself obliged to stretch her/his
imagination to its limits. Some users of language are definitely better in that, but they do it in
a motivated by the conventions of language way, i.e., if and only if they find out a “trigger” of
the sort we are talking about here – a rigid negative superlative. In other words, this is not a
matter of development of “private language” and/or individual idiosyncrasies of meaning
attribution. It is a matter of using more or less successfully the potential of language.
(Un)Fortunately, the picturesque word we were concerned with – шашкън(ин) – becomes
lately used in a more and more vague way, indicating that the younger generations of the
speakers of Bulgarian tend progressively to miss its semantic potential. This is supposed to
mean that in another couple of decades it will become, most probably, obsolete (or at least
lose its performative force of a superlative for special purposes).
A note about the linguistic form of the negative superlatives is also due. Although the
majority of them can be used as indeclinable adjectives, and thus formally mark traits or
characteristic ways of behavior of humans, e.g., урсуз секретарка “≈ damn secretary” or
урсуз адвокат “≈ damn barrister”, as well as becoming nominalized as nouns, e.g., Петър е
голям урсузин “Peter is a really damn person”, they refer in both cases, as already pointed
out, to peculiar human character that is associated with certain behaviors and roles in the
society. This way of interpretation of the meaning of урсуз and its kin makes them more akin
to classifiers, when used in nominal phrases, than as adjectives sui generis (even if this is the
way they are identified in the Bulgarian grammar).
To summarize, Turkisms that are used as rigid negative superlatives evoke meaning
along the following lines:
(a) By default their linguistic form that “sounds Turkish” acts as a trigger;
(b) The trigger evokes expectation that the word means something negative that is
“aggravated” in a special way from the point of view of the expressed emotion,
attitude or set;
(c) The aggravated emotion/attitude/expectation exerts pressure to look for the worst
possible interpretation in picking up the meaning of the word on each occasion of its
use;
(d) As soon as strong enough combination of semantic features is found that fits the
context and expectation, it provides feedback to the attitudinal component and thus
establishes its status on a superlative level.
The stages described above are presented consecutively for analytical purposes only. In reality
the pickup of meaning, as it is coded in single words activated from the mental lexicon, must
happen within approximately 400-500 ms. from the onset of stimulus presentation, i.e., they
must at least in part be enacted in parallel way and the contextual validation of its meaning
must happen within a couple of seconds (depending on the length of the corresponding
sentence). From this point of view, coding contents of such complexity into single words that
can be handled online is a formidable feat of language processing when we compare them to
words like leg or yellow. Such complex semantic patterns, however, are also among the ones
that suffer most (in terms of their semantic potential) from “bleaching” as far as the plenitude
of processing is carried out on each occasion of their use. The bleaching in question consists
in the cognitive component becoming more and more vague and indeterminate. The attitude
under the circumstances becomes vaguely generalized into “something very bad” or
“something bad in a certain peculiar way” without the support of reference-oriented
attributions. The next stage is their loss of superlative status that consisted in the capacity to
function as means of aggravated assault in face-to-face interaction or as a categorization with
maximum insinuation potential if referring to a third person. Correspondingly, they start to
look just kinky, peculiar, funny, awkward. The last stage, logically, is to stop using and
consequently forgetting them.
7.
Conclusions: The significance of the fate of Turkish loans in Bulgarian in
envisaging what can happen when two languages are in a long-term contact while
the two corresponding cultures are in conflict that will prove irreconcilable
As far as the present author is aware, the study of language contacts was always considered as
a way to investigate the trends of cultural impact of one culture and language upon another
one. That the history of borrowing and the fate of the loans may be used as a way to
reconstruct and display the nature and the outcomes of cross-cultural conflict may look
counterintuitive, as it may seem “self-evident” that one should borrow only things that one
“accepts”, one or other way, in one‟s language and culture. As we saw from the presentation
of the fate of Ottoman Turkish loan words in Bulgarian during the last one and a half
centuries, trends in borrowing and subsequent use can also provide us with objective evidence
about the nature of the cross-cultural conflict and the trends in the way it found its solution.
As far as the history of this solution was culture-specific and not presented in a comparable
way in other languages and cultures outside of the Balkan peninsula, the translation and the
interpretation of the culture-specific component implied in those Turkisms offers a serious
challenge.
On the other hand, in identifying the mechanisms of dissociation from certain cultural
influence, we found some of them that are most probably of general significance, i.e. express
universals of coding negative emotions, attitudes and sets in expressing cultural inacceptance.
The first of them is that negative attitudes and evaluations find their way in words that are
associated with humans and their way of life. The second is that the concepts of cultural
significance coded in the loans move in a “downward” direction in terms of social status,
ascribed and/or associated with them, as well as in stylistic value. They find in this way their
place in the substandard language and in the corresponding subcultures. This trend has its
impact on their semantics in terms of the pejorativization of the loans. Depending on the
strength of the cultural reaction a set of them may achieve the value of rigid negative
superlatives. From the point of view of the thematic orientation they may tend to form
semantic groups that target specific problematic areas of the intercultural relationship that
may continue to be in use a long time after the cultural conflict found, one or other way, its
solution.
But what are the conditions that may lead first to massive acceptance of loans from a
certain culture that is followed by a second phase of their rejection. This happens when the
interaction in question is marked in two respects: (1) the relationship between the two cultures
is strongly asymmetric in terms of the direction of influence; and (2) the influence is due to
the domination and “oppression” of one of them on economic, military, social, ethnic, etc.
grounds. From this point of view, the analysis of the fate of Ottoman heritage in Bulgarian
presented here has not only significance in finding out what are the outcomes of this concrete
crosscultural conflict. While being culture-specific in terms of breadth and depth of the
dissimulating reaction, it helps us at the same time better discern trends that are of general
significance, in this respect. They include the possibilities to develop pejoratives, ambivalent
expressions and negative superlatives, etc. in any language at any time as far as there appear
appropriate circumstances – language contacts between two cultures that are in conflict with
each other. The results are thus quite important in the context of the current cultural
globalization worldwide, as they provide us with important clues where to look for symptoms
of crosscultural conflicts as mirrored in the way of use of language. With the information
revolution and the progressive intensification of intercultural exchange it would be reasonable
to expect that not only possibilities for globalization, but also of compensatory fragmentation
and dissimulation will multiply and proliferate. The example of the troubled BulgarianOttoman relationship in the past and its long-lasting outcomes may help to chart the potential
for expression of other cross-cultural conflicts in the past and today as far as they may be
supported by intensive language contacts, bi- and multilinguality, economic and other types of
dependence, etc., that today may be additionally aggravated by the massive use of language
technologies like WWW, social networks and the like – bilaterally, regionally and on a world
scale – especially in the cases of communities, sects, minorities and whole nations that display
antagonism at the level of anticulture reaction (radical inacceptance of attempt to impose
cultural domination from outside) to dominant globally trends.
Notes
* For ease of recognition, all Turkish loans in this article are marked in bold (with certain exceptions,
1
2
3
e.g., турчин, турски, османски (but османлия), мюсюлманин).
In this calculation I include loans that can be found not only in the literary but also in the colloquial
language and substandards, excluding however dialects where they were subject to wide local
variation depending first and foremost on the availability and interaction with representatives of the
Turkish-speaking ethnic minority that may have not lost its significance up to the present day.
For an overview of the methodological and theoretical heterogeneity in pragmatics cf. Stamenov
(2003). Even after considering on a full scale the current variety of the pragmatic models into
account, there is still no theory or model that would help to deal with the way of use of the Turkish
loans of this type in an adequate way.
As one can see, the English version of Stoyanoff (1913) includes elements of free rendering of the
content of the Journal. For this reason it was not used here in presenting translational equivalents
in English even when the corresponding episodes found place in the English selection in question.
Cited literary sources, dictionaries and archives
Archive of IBE. Архив на Института за български език. Институт за български език „Проф.
Любомир Андрейчин“.
Baskakov et al. 1977. Баскаков, А. Н. и др. (ред.). 1977. Турецко-русский словарь. Москва.
BER 1971-. Георгиев, Вл. и др. (отг. ред.). 1971-. Български етимологичен речник. Т. І-VІ.
София.
Bernstein 1986. Бернштейн, С. Б. 1986. Българско-руски речник. Москва.
BTR 1994. Андрейчин, Л. и др. 1994. Български тълковен речник. 4-то изд, допълнено от
Димитър Попов. София.
Burov et al. 2000. Буров, Ст. и др. (съст.). 2000. Тълковен речник на българския език. Велико
Търново: Gaberoff.
Cholakov 1859. Чолаков, В. 1859. Писмо за българския словар О. Неофита Рилскаго.
Български книжици, год. ІІ, част III, кн. 22, 731-738.
Dobrev 2009. Добрев, И. (съст.) 2009. Академичен турско-български речник. София.
Gerov 1975. Геров, Н. 1975 (1895-1908). Речник на българския език. Фототипно издание. Т. I-VI.
София.
GHS 2002. Grannes, A., K. R. Hauge & H. Süleymanoğlu. 2002. A Dictionary of Turkisms in
Bulgarian. Oslo.
Нitov 1962. Хитов, П. 1962 (1873). Моето пътуване по Стара планина. София.
Hony, H. C. and F. Iz (eds.). 1984. The Oxford Turkish-English Dictionary. Third ed. Oxford.
Ikonomov 1968. Икономов, Н. 1968. Балканска народна мъдрост. Успоредици на български,
сръбски, турски, румънски, гръцки и албански пословици и поговорки. София.
Кonstantinov 2005. Константинов, А. 2005 (1895). Бай Ганьо. Невероятни разкази за един
съвременен българин. София.
Konstantinov, A. 2010. Bai Ganyo. Incredible tales of a modern Bulgarian. Ed. by V. Friedman;
transl. by V. Friedman, Chr. Kramer, G. Feilder and C. Rudin. Madison.
Кrasteva 2003. Кръстева, В. 2003. Тълковен речник на турцизмите в български език с
илюстративен материал от литературата, фолклора, пресата, радиото и телевизията. София.
ОUP 2005. Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary of Current English. Seventh ed. Oxford.
Петков и др. 2001. Петков, П. и др. (ред.). 2001. Българско-немски речник. София.
PONS 2005а. Нов универсален английско-български речник. София.
PONS 2005б. Нов универсален българско-английски речник. София.
RBE 1977-. Речник на българския език. 1977-. Отг. редактори К. Чолакова и др. Т. 1-13. София.
RSBKE 1959. Речник на съвременния български книжовен език. 1955-1959. Под ред. на Ст.
Романски. Т. І-ІІІ. София.
Slaveykov 2003. Славейков, П. Р. 2003 (1890/1897). Български притчи или пословици и
характерни думи. София.
Stojanow, S. 1978. Der Aufbruch der Fliegenden Schar: Chronik d. bulgar. Aufstände 1875/1876. Bd.
1 u. 2. Aus d. Bulgar. übers. u. mit e. Einf. von H. Herboth. Berlin.
Stoyanov 1977. Стоянов, З. 1977 (1884, 1887, 1892). Записки по българските въстания. [Разказ на
очевидци. 1870-1876. Т. І-ІІІ]. София.
Stoyanoff, Z. 1913. Pages from the Autobiography of a Bulgarian Insurgent. Transl. from Bulgarian
by M. W. Potter. London.
Stoyanov 1980. Стоянов, З. 1980 (1884, 1885, 1888). Васил Левски (Дяконът). Черти от живота
му; Четите в България на Филип Тотя, Хаджи Димитра и Стефан Караджа (1867-1868);
Христо Ботйов. Опит за биография. София.
Steuerwald, K. 1988. Türkisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. 2. Aufl. Wiesbaden.
Škaljić, A. 1966. Turcismi u srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Sarajevo.
Vazov 1979. Вазов, И. 1979. Под игото. София.
Vrachanski 1992. Врачански, С. 1992. Житие и страдание грешнаго Софрония. Велико Търново.
Zaimov 2004. Заимов, Ст. 2004. Миналото. Етюди върху записките на Захари Стоянов. София.
Cited literature
Asenova 2002. Асенова, П. 2002. Балканско езикознание. Основни проблеми на Балканския
езиков съюз. София: Фабер.
Friedman, V. 1996. The Turkish lexical element in the languages of the republic of Macedonia from
the Ottoman period to independence. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 32(2), 133-150.
Friedman, V. 2003. Review of Grannes, A., K. R. Hauge, & H. Süleymanoğlu. A Dictionary of
Turkisms in Bulgarian. Turkic Languages, 7(1), 146-148.
Grannes, A. 1996a. Turco-Bulgarica. Articles in English and French concerning Turkish influence on
Bulgarian (Turcologica 30). Wiesbaden.
Grannes, A. 1996b. Turkish influence on Bulgarian. In Grannes 1996a, 1-30.
Grannes, A. 1996c. Les turcismes dans le plus célèbre roman bulgare, Sous le joug d‟Ivan Vazov. In
Grannes 1996a, 99-119.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as a Social Semiotic. London.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago.
Lakova 1972. Лакова, М. 1972. Турцизмите в РСБКЕ от стилистична гледна точка. Български
език, ХХІІ(1-2), 61-72.
Mirchev 1952. Мирчев, К. 1952. За съдбата на турцизмите в българския език. – Известия на
Института за български език, 2, 117-127.
Nikolova 2006. Николова, Н. 2006. Билингвизмът в българските земи през ХV-ХІХ век. Шумен.
Schaller, H. 1973. Die türkischen Lehnwörter in der bulgarische Sprache: Eine Betrachtung nach
sprachlichen Merkmalen und Bedeutungsgruppen. – Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 9, 174-186.
Stamenov, M. 2003. Quo Vadis, Pragmatics? Alternative conceptions in making sense of a
heterogeneous discipline. – Journal of Pragmatics, 35(2), 263-297.
Stamenov, M. 2009. Cognates in language, in the mind and in a prompting dictionary for translation.
In Susanne Goepferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen & Inger Mees (eds.) Behind the Mind. Methods,
Models and Results in Translation Process Research. Copenhagen Studies in Linguistics, 37 (219251). Copenhagen.
Stamenov 2011. Стаменов, М. 2011. Съдбата на турцизмите в българския език и в българската
култура (The fate of Turkish loan words in the Bulgarian language and culture). София. 870 стр.
Stamenov, in preparation. Стаменов, М. Ръкопис. Емоция и език (Emotion and language). София.
Tomić 2004. Tomić, O. M. 2004. The Balkan Sprachbund properties. In O. M. Tomić (ed.) Balkan
Syntax and Semantics (1-58). Amsterdam.
Tsonev 1934. Цонев, Б. 1934. История на българский език. Т. ІІ-ІІІ (Университетска библиотека
№ 134). София.
Wierzbicka, A. 1999. Emotional universals. – Language Design, 2, 23-69.
View publication stats
Maxim Stamenov