2796123869

Of>8 UN DEBAT : DES MENTnALfiTTES (COŁUECTWBS 4

(speculation), tom (lome), arsenał (armoury), industria (industry)^u.

Most of these terms were neologisras in Romanian and had been adopted in the first half of the 19th century ^I2. Though borrowed in Bulgarian from Romanian, taking into account that they were French or Italian borrowings in Romanian some Bulgarian researchers today consider thein to be direct borrowings from these languages. The minutę analysis of the speeific conditions in which they were initially used, show their direct Romanian origin. We can neyertheless suppose that the same word eould have been borrowed at different closc time interrals and different surround-ings from different languages. This linguistic process was studied in Romanian by Al. Graur, and it lies at the basis of his thcory of “multiple etymology”ⁱ³. The socio-politieal vocabulary is, on the one hand, a “teehnical” terminology and, on the other, it is directly determined by ideological facts, that is, the soeio-linguistic ones which impose it. It has therefore a double determination in the inteiWal of introduction and consolidation of tbe concepts and their corresponding terms. Their presence has been proved up to now in the special field of political journa-lisra. It is neyertheless when the soeio-political terminology spreads to the everyday language, to private correspondencc or to introductions to books, that we can consider the imposition of speeific terms a positive fact. The socio-political terminology, as a technical terminology, had to penetrate into the generał system of the Bulgarian language, while those Bulgarian revolutionaries who thought the enrichment of the Bulgarian with “European” terms a necessary step, could not definitely impose their point of view. In the intermediary phase, when a certain terminology is being used by a restricted group of speakers, it is easily replaceable aceording to the orientation, preference or selection of those who use it.

The orientation of some Bulgarian revolutionaries in the 20th century towards the Russian language was thus normal and observed the intemal laws of the Bulgarian language. The fact that at a certain moment, the socio-political Romanian-borrowed terminology was given up altogether is an indirect proof that there exists an onomasiologic area, and confirms its coliesion. An analysis of the socio-political Romanian-borrowed Bulgarian terms evinces as well the vahdity of Yidossi’s theory on the lexical group’s cohesion and the “organie” etymology, which can be resorted to in the historical researches on a certain language ¹⁴.

The yariation amoug synonyms as to the imposition of terms of Slavic origin or speeific Bulgarian and the so-ealled “international” terms is still going on in contemporary Bulgarian. There is a yaria-tion, foliowed by exclusion, between the following terms : informiram (to inform) — osvedomjavam, informativen (informatiye) — osvedomiielen, aktiven (active) — deen, progresiven (progressive) — napredniÓav, progres — napredak, tri-coler (tricolour) — tricvet, tribagrenik, patriot (patriot) — rodoliubec,patrio-

¹¹ B. Slmeonov, Prinosi kim islorijala na rumćnskfja lltcraiurcn ezik prez XIX o., in “Bułgarski ezik", IX, 1959, fasc. 4-5, p. 462-468.

¹³    Elena $erban, Obseroatli asupra lexiculul unor documcnlc de la 1848 in Contrlbufll la islorla llmbll rom&ne lllcrare In sec. al XlX-lea, vol. I, 1958, Bucurcęti, p. 115 — 133.

¹⁸ Al. Graur, Ellmologtl romóneęll, Bucureęti, 1968.

¹⁴    B. VldossI, Preslllili, espanslone e mlgrazione del lermlnl lecnlcl nelle lingue romanze e non romanze, Firenze, 1965.