UNIVERZITET U BEOGRADU

FILOLOŠKI FAKULTET

Hedina D. Sijerčić

LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE OF ROMA

WITHIN TRANSLATION IN THE WESTERN
BALKANS: POETRY IN SELF-TRANSLATION
(JEZIK I KNJIŽEVNOST ROMA U PREVODU
NA ZAPADNOM BALKANU: POEZIJA U
AUTOPREVODU)

Doktorska disertacija

Beograd, 2018.
 UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE
FACULTY OF PHILOLOGY

Hedina D. Sijerčić

LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE OF ROMA

WITHIN TRANSLATION IN THE WESTERN
BALKANS: POETRY IN SELF-TRANSLATION
(JEZIK I KNJIŽEVNOST ROMA U PREVODU
NA ZAPADNOM BALKANU: POEZIJA U
AUTOPREVODU)

Doctoral dissertation

Belgrad, 2018.
 БЕЛГРАДСКИЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ

ФИЛОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ ФАКУЛЬТЕТ

Хедина Д. Сиерчич

ЯЗЫК И ЛИТЕРАТУРА РОМИ В ПЕРЕВОДЕ

В ЗАПАДНЫХ БАЛКАНАХ:
ПОЭЗИЯ В АВТОПРЕВОДЕ

Докторская диссертация

Белград, 2018.
PODACI O MENTORU I ČLANOVIMA KOMISIJE:

MENТОR:
dr Mirjana Daničić, docent
Filološki Fakultet, Univerzitet u Beogradu

ČLANOVI KOMISIJE:

DATUM ODBRANE: ___________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Above all, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Mirjana Daničić, Assistant Professor,
for her valuable support and guidance of my work, and express my profound thanks for her
willingness to help me with my dissertation. Also, many thanks from whole my heart to Prof. Dr.
Jelena Filipović and Prof. Dr. Igor Lakić for their selfless support and advice giving me through
their expertises in linguistics, sociolinguistic, translation studies and Romani studies.
I would like to thank Ruždija Ruso Sejdović for his support and constant help, giving me
information and advice related to Romani authors and literature, for his consent to use the self-
analysis of his and my poems and his written work. My thanks also go to Mehmed-Meho Saćip
and Nedjo Osman for giving me consent to analyze their poems, and for the support I needed for
my work. I also wish to express my sadness for the loss of my friend and poet Mehmed-Meho
Saćip who left us on 23rd November 2015, and who will no longer be able to see the finalization
of this thesis. Te del o Del tuke lahki phuv Meho!
I could not have completed my studies without the help and love of my family who cared
about me in different ways. The spirit of my father Derviš Tahirović has always been with me,
giving me the strength to keep going and reach my goal, knowing and aware that he is proud of
his čhej Dina.
JEZIK I KNJIŽEVNOST ROMA U PREVODU NA ZAPADNOM BALKANU: POEZIJA
U AUTOPREVODU

REZIME: Оva disertacija razvija i kreira, po prvi put, u području istoriografije Zapadnog
Balkana, analizu romske književnosti (poezija) u prevodu, uzimajući u obzir veću dinamiku
romskog jezika, kulture i književne produkcije. U kontekstu ove teze tražim i ispitujem
dvojezične/višejezične romske pesnike/pisce koji prevode sami sebe odnosno svoja dela.
Iako dvojezični/višejezični, romski pesnici/pisci svesni su potrebe autoprevođenja radi
razumevanja ne samo od strane čitalaca pripadnika većinskih naroda i njihovih većinskih jezika,
nego i od strane svojih (romskih) čitalaca pripadnika drugih romskih grupa koji govore različite
romske dijalekte. Kao jedan od značajnijih faktora bitnih za dvojezično i višejezično
autoprevođenje je individualno samopouzdanje u svoje sopstveno pisanje. Na autoprevod, kod
romskih pesnika i pisaca, pored samopouzdanja utiče još nekoliko faktora: samosvest o razlikama
između dijalekata, svesnost o razlikama u običajima i navikama, svesnost o razlikama u nivoima
znanja romskog i razlikama u novoima znanja većinskog/ih jezika, a koje zavisi od individualnog
nivoa obrazovanja.
Cilj disertacije je da pruži adekvatno razumevanje i analizu romske književnosti, romskog
jezika i prevoda romskog jezika u opštem kontekstu književnog prevođenja, a posebno u činu
autoprevođenja poezije. Ova disertacija sadrži uvod, četiri poglavlja i zaključak: Prevodilačke
nauke i romsko pisanje (Poglavlje I), Romski jezik – romani čhib (Poglavlje II), Kritički pristupi
romskom pisanju u prevodu (Poglavlje III), i Kritičke analize romske poezije (Poglavlje IV).
Prvo poglavlje razmatra različite pristupe prvodilačkih nauka, ali se fokusira na one
najkorisnije za analizu višejezičkih pesama i diskusije o romskom prevodu u analitičkim
okvirima prevodilačkih nauka. Drugo poglavlje predstavlja opšte informacije o romskom jeziku,
romskom pisanju i književnosti, kao i specifične informacije o romskom jeziku na Balkanu.
Treće poglavlje objašnjava metode korištene za prikupljanje i definisanje korpusa romske
poezije, kao i metode vođenja jezičke i književne analize u poeziji odabranih romskih pesnika.
Četvrto poglavlje analizira četiri odabrana pesnika: Ruždiju Rusu-Sejdovića, Mehmeda Mehu
Saćipa, Nedju Osmana i Hedinu Tahirović-Sijerčić koji govore i pišu na različitim romskim
dijalektima, koji su višejezični, koji sami prevode svoja djela, i koji u nekim slučajevima sami
analiziraju svoja djela.
Kroz analize i auto-analize pesama navedenih pesnika istražujem ne samo višejezičnost i
autoprevođenje u romskom kontekstu, nego i uslove života između jezika i poznavanje više
jezika. Nastojim da objasnim način na koji interkulturalni dijalog u poeziji odražava
’dekolonijalnu strategiju’ kojom pesnici pokušavaju da progovore svojim romskim glasom, a kao
odgovor na vekovnu reprezentaciju od strane Drugih.
Moja tvrdnja je da romski pesnici najradije sami prevode svoja dela. U autoprevodu
romski pisci ‘prevode sebe’ i ‘transformišu sami sebe’ u njihovom književnom izrazu. Bez
obzira da li su njihove pesme napisane na dijalektima romskog jezika kao izvorni tekst ili u
autoprevodu, sve verzije se međusobno nadopunjuju. Svaki naredni autoprevod nastavlja lanac
komplementarnosti.

Ključne reči: Romi, romski, poezija, prevod, autoprevod, višejezičnost.

Naučna oblast: translatologija, jezik, književnost, romske studije, prevodilačke studije, kultura.
Uža naučna oblast: prevodilačke studije, translatologija.
LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE OF ROMA WITHIN TRANSLATION IN THE
WESTERN BALKANS: POETRY IN SELF-TRANSLATION

ABSTRACT: This dissertation develops and creates, for the first time, and in the area of
the Western Balkans historiography, an analysis of Romani literature (poetry) within translation,
taking into account the larger dynamics of Romani language – Romani čhib, culture, and literary
production. In the context of my thesis, I seek to investigate bilingual/multilingual Romani
poets/writers who self-translate.
Even though bilingual/multilingual, Romani poets/writers are aware of the need to be self-
translated in order to be understood not just by majority language readers but also by own
(Romani) different dialect speaking readers. While self-translating Romani writers ‘translate
themselves’ and ‘transform themselves’ in their literary expression through self-translation. Their
self-translation, besides self-confidence in one’s own writing, influence several factors: self-
awareness about differences between dialects, cultures, customs and habits; levels of knowledge
of Romani; and levels of knowledge of majority language(s), which depend on individual levels
of education.
The goal of the dissertation is to provide an adequate understanding and analysis of the
Romani literature, Romani language and Romani language translation in the general context of
literary translation, and in the act of self-translation, in poetry in particular.
The dissertation comprises an introduction, four chapters and a conclusion: Translation
Studies [TS] and Romani writing (Chapter I), The Romani language – Romani čhib (Chapter II),
Critical approaches to Romani writing in translation (Chapter III), and Critical analyses of
Romani poetry (Chapter IV).
The first chapter considers various TS approaches but focuses principally on those most
useful for analysis of the multilingual poems and discussion on Romani translation within the
analytical frameworks of TS. The second chapter presents general information on Romani čhib,
Romani writing and literature, and specific information concerning Romani čhib in the Balkans.
The third chapter explains the method I used to gather and define my corpus of Romani
poetry, it discusses the way of linguistic and literary analyses in selected poetry by Romani poets.
 The fourth chapter analyses four selected poets: Ruždija Ruso Sejdović, Mehmed-Meho
Saćip, Nedjo Osman and Hedina Tahirović-Sijerčić who speak and write in different Romani
dialects, who are multilingual, self-translate and in some instances self-analyse their poems.
Through analyses and self-analyses of the poems and the poets' self-translations I explore
not just multilingualism and self-translation but also the condition of living between languages
and knowing several languages. I seek to explain how the intercultural dialogue present in the
poetry could reflect a ‘decolonial strategy’, by which poets attempt to reappropriate their own
Romani voices – in response to centuries of representation by Others.

My assertion is that Romani writers (poets in this case) do and prefer to translate their
own work. Whether their poems are written in Romani čhib dialects as an original text or in self-
translation, all versions complement one another. Each subsequent self-translation continues
chain of complementarity.

Keywords: Roma, Romani, poetry, translation, self-translation, language, multilingualism.

Scientific area: Translation Studies, language, literature, Romani studies, culture.
Narrow/special scientific area: translation studies, translatology.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER I –TRANSLATION STUDIES AND ROMANI WRITING ............................................................. 8

1.1 Translation as a practice.......................................................................................................9

1.2 Source and target relations………………………………………………..........................11
1.3 Readerships, translators and reception ...............................................................................13
1.4 Problematizing translation relationships.............................................................................18
1.5 Self-translation....................................................................................................................22
1.6 Multilingualism...................................................................................................................28

CHAPTER II – THE ROMANI LANGUAGE (ROMANI ČHIB) ................................................................. 35

2.1 Romani čhib – spoken and written.....................................................................................37

a) Spoken, written or conversational language – what is the ‘proper’ language?..............42
b) Romani čhib and its identity..........................................................................................46
c) The problem of standardization.....................................................................................47
2.2 Romani dialects..................................................................................................................51
2.3 Neologisms and loanwords................................................................................................55
2.4 Contact languages – a mixed Romani čhib........................................................................58
2.5 Romani language in literary context..................................................................................60
a) Romani literary production written by Roma in Romani čhib and non-Romani
language/s – a dilemma of categories................................................................................61
b) Romani literary production – and the inclusion of Romani women writers ................63
c) Romani literary production – its origins in orality........................................................66
d) Romani literary production – on the question of ‘mother tounge’, ‘native language’ and
translation..........................................................................................................................74

CHAPTER III – CRITICAL APPROACHES TO ROMANI WRITING IN TRANSLATION .........................76

3.1 Defining corpus................................................................................................................76
Procedure of selection.....................................................................................................79
3.2 Relevance of personal background..................................................................................81
3.3 Self-reflexivity as a method.............................................................................................85
3.4 Importance of self-translators..........................................................................................89
3.5 Linguistic-literary analysis..............................................................................................91
3.6 Proposal of typology of critique....................................................................................104

CHAPTER IV – CRITICAL TRANSLATION ANALYSES OF ROMANI POETRY................................. 106

4.1 Ruždija Ruso Sejdović....................................................................................................107

a. Biographical information and literary production.......................................................107
b. Analyses of Poem “Phiripe – Putovanja”....................................................................111
c. Analyses of Poem “Autoportreti – Autoportret”.........................................................119
4.2 Mehmed-Meho Saćip......................................................................................................133
a. Biographical information and literary production.......................................................133
b. Analyses of Poem “Cahra – Čerga”............................................................................135
4.3 Nedjo Osman...................................................................................................................145
a. Biographical information and literary production
b. Analyses of Poem “Ma bijan man - Beni doğurma - Gebäre mich nicht - Nemoj me
rađati [Don’t Give Birth to Me]”.....................................................................................147
4.4 Hedina Tahirović-Sijerčić................................................................................................160
a. Biographical information and literary production........................................................160
b. Analyses of Poem “Drabarni –Gatara”........................................................................162
c. Analyses of Poem “CV 6 – CV 6”...............................................................................174

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 185

Invisible writers and translators.......................................................................................187
Thinking about future of translation in the Romani context.............................................189
The future of Romani čhib................................................................................................191

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 193

ANNEX I – BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ......................................................................................... 225
Avdić, Šemso (1950 - .. )
Berberski, Slobodan (1919 - 1989)
Borde, Andrew (1490 – 1549)
Demir, Ljatif (1961 - .. )
Dimić, Trifun (1956 - 2001)
Djuric, Rajko (1947 - .. )
Eminova, Akile (1961 - .. )
Franz, Philomena (1922 - .. )
Haliti, Bajram (1955 - .. )
Hancock, Ian (1942- ..)
Horvat, Jožek Muc (1965 - .. )
Jusuf, Šaip (1932 or 1933 - 2010)
Krasnići, Alija (1952 - .. )
Nikolić, Jovan (1955 - .. )
Paćaku, Kujtim (1959 - .. )
Ranjičić, Gina (1830 – 1891)
Sejdić, Marko Aladin(1970 - .. )
Sejdić, Rasim (1943-1981)
Serbezovski, Muharem (1950 - .. )
Stojka, Ceija(1933 – 2013)
Taikon, Katarina (1932 – 1995)
Wajs, Bronislawa Papusza (1908 or 1910 – 1987)

ANNEX II - ANALYSED POEMS................................................................................................. 234

ANNEX III - LIST OF POETS AND LANGUAGE PAIRS ......................................................... 243

ANNEX IV - ROMANI LITERARY WORKS/ MY CORPUS ................................................... 245

ANNEX V - QUESTIONARY FOR AUTHORS .......................................................................... 295

ANNEX VI- DECISION: THE ROMANI ALPHABET ............................................................297

BIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................................301

APPENDIX 1, APPENDIX 2, APPENDIX 3 ….……………………………………………...302

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

TS Translation Studies
TL Target language
SL Source language
TT Target text
ST Source text
DTS Descriptive Translation Studies
AL1 Author’s language (first)
AL2 Author’s language (second, in self-translation)
AL3 Author’s language (third, i.e. successive language version)
NAL1 Not an author’s language (first version of English translation)
NAL2 Not an author’s language (second version of English translation)
NAL3 Not an author’s language (third version of English translation)
NAL4 Not an author’s language (fourth version of English translation)

Please note that all foreign-language terms in the text have been translated into English by
the author for ease of understanding.
INTRODUCTION

This PhD dissertation develops my present and ongoing research on Romani literary
works, contextualizing them through the perspective of translation studies (TS) research and
within the larger dynamics of Romani studies – Romani čhib1, culture, and literary production
and reception. In the context of my thesis in particular, I seek to study Romani writers who write
and translate themselves, to investigate how their language can be understood in self-translation,
and also find the reasons why and in which ways the source and target language(s) complement
each other in self-translation.
Investigating Romani writing through the prism of translation opens up multiple avenues
of inquiry that may provide further insight into multilingualism and TS research. As a
preliminary, certain characteristics are important to keep in mind when approaching Romani
literary and artistic expression, ones that potentially have an impact later on the practical process
of translation as well as on the history of translation practices. It is critical to be aware of all the
differences within Romani čhib and its dialects, culture, habits and customs in order to
understand the complexities of translation and its processes in context.
Translation studies research allows us to reflect on the general and specific characteristics
of Romani čhib, of Romani writing and literature, and of the different approaches taken to
translation in the social and cultural context.
Firstly, because Romani language dialects have traditionally not been taught in national
educational institutions and since many of Romani people speak them only at home and in
Romani local community spaces, multilingualism – or perhaps more exactly, plurilingualism as
defined by the EU (CEC 2014) – can be considered a norm.2

1
Throughout the dissertation, Romani language will be referred to and written as Romani čhib. I will also use Rom
(man of Romani origin in the singular), Roma (men and also people of Romani origin in the plural), Romni (woman
of Romani origin in the singular), Romnja (women of Romani origin in the plural), and Romani (an adjective).
2
In the 2009 Council of Europe Plurilingual and Pluricultural Competence Report, “Plurilingual and pluricultural
competence refers to the ability to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part in intercultural
interaction, where a person, viewed as a social actor has proficiency of varying degrees in several languages and
experience of several cultures.” Because proficiency varies, “…the strategies used […] may vary according to the
language or language combinations […]” and thus “…it does not result of a simple addition of two or more
monolingual competences in several languages[;] it permits combinations and alternations of different kinds.”
(https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/SourcePublications/CompetencePlurilingue09web_en.pdf).

1
 Secondly, because there is no physical, geographical Romani nation-state, with an
associated legal and political apparatus supporting national language (including standardisation)
policies and an infrastructure promoting development of a national culture.
Thirdly, because Romani ‘identity’ in effect has multiple linguistic-cultural conjugations
worldwide rooted in and depending on specific local histories and degrees of assimilation into
local nation-state cultures linguistically and culturally.
These basic facts alone require consideration of TS approaches that problematize and
nuance the conventional dichotomous concepts of source and target language-cultures and
identities as associated exclusively with single nation-states or compact geographical territories.
Furthermore, an important part of Romani history is uniquely anchored in the Balkans and in the
Eastern and Central Europe. There have been clear calls as of late from within the discipline of
TS to ‘turn’ a view toward translation practices and traditions within eastern Europe
(Tymoczko 2006, 2007; Baer 2011) and elsewhere, and with the exception of Toninato3 and
Folaron4, there are virtually no academics in translation studies who have explored translation
practices occurring within the Romani community, which collectively constitute the largest
minority group (Anon, 2011) in the European Union.
It is significant to point out the constant challenge of representation encountered when
writing as a Rom/Romni. The act of writing is an a priori struggle that presents various dilemmas
of representation simultaneously – of the self, of the self as a man and/or woman, of a minority /
minoritized culture, and against centuries-old representations made by other(s). The act of
creative writing and translation carries with it the weight of translating simultaneously one’s own
heritage to counteract existing prejudices and stereotypes, in order for one’s individual artistic
voice to be effectively heard and understood. Individual voice in “[...] the works by Romani
authors represent the effort to affirm themselves as subjects – and not mere objects – in the public
discourse on their identity” (Toninato 2004, 342).
My experience as a multilingual Romani woman, journalist, writer, self-translator,
translator, educator, community activist and representative has revealed time and again that
translation is a vibrant cultural practice not only within Romani communities settled in the
Western Balkans and southeastern Europe but also within the broader, global ‘Romani

3
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/modernlanguages/people/toninato Accessed November 2017.
4
http://www.translationromani.net/en Accessed November 2017.

2
community’ worldwide. Even though Romani community is mostly bilingual and very often
multilingual it depends on every day translation. Their language is constantly dissolving,
deconstructing, changing and surviving within the contact languages they live with and in.
Translation always involves different languages and different cultures. There is not just
two and more languages but also two and more cultures which come into contact, inseparably.
“[T]ranslation is not only a linguistic act, it is also an act of communication across cultures”
(House 2014, 3). Translation is intercultural communication requiring intercultural understanding
which is the “basis of a crucial concept in translation: that of functional equivalence” (House
2014, 4). If there is not knowledge about linguistic and culture specifities in any contact
language between author and reader the problem of intercultural understanding appears. This
problem can be solved in the translation by the translator. At the same time, languages express
cultural and social realities, and we are able easily to recognize the position of each of them.
Romani people, their culture and ways of life, as well as Romani migration history,
combine to create and construct Romani identity as a symbolic expression, with symbols first
bound to nomadism (Tahirović-Sijerčić in Khalifa 2014), to romantic and exotic cultural illusions
of Romani women and men, and to depictions of their ‘free lifestyle’ by European authors,
majority societies and nobility. This can lend itself, as Kyle Conway wrote when thinking about
sociologists and translation, to an “investigat[ion of] cultural translation as a function of
displacement” (Conway 2012, 21-25)5. This displacement is two-fold in the context of Roma.
Because Romani people have been forced to displace internally and move long distances with
their families, they have been obliged to constantly ‘negotiate their way’ (Ibid.) through each
successive community they join, whether temporarily or permanently. At the same time, non-
Roma majority societies have projected (and somewhat canonized) cultural images of Roma as
nomadic, without questioning why.

Postcolonial scholars such as Homi Bhabha see cultural translation “as a tool, to challenge
oppressive or restrictive social norms” (Ibid.).

5
“Cultural translation is a concept with competing definitions coming from two broad fields,
anthropology/ethnography and cultural/postcolonial studies. In anthropology, it usually refers to the act of describing
for members of one cultural community how members of another interpret the world and their place in it. In cultural
studies, it usually refers to the different forms of negotiation that people engage in when they are displaced from one
cultural community into another, or it refers to the displacement itself. “ (Conway 2012, 21)

3
 Cultural translation desacralizes the transparent assumptions of cultural supremacy, and
in that very act, demands a contextual specificity, a historical differentiation within
minority positions (Bhabha 1994, 228).

Contesting this imaginary image by Roma themselves is relatively recent. For most, there
has simply been no opportunity to think or to be concerned with education which is the key to
prosperity and survival of any ethnic group. The struggle for many has been focused on the fight
against poverty and discrimination in order to obtain the bare necessities of life. From this
perspective, the concept of cultural translation as a process that occurs as a function of
displacement becomes an interesting one to reflect on. The result of the historical trail of
migration and displacement is visible in the cultural and literary production by Roma. The
recently emerging transnational Romani literary ‘corpus’ reveals not only a body of literary work
produced in various Romani language dialects; it also contains – significantly – literary works
produced in the diverse nation-state languages in which Romani writers have been educated.
There are many questions which should be answered, in particular the reasons why many
Roma authors do not write exclusively in ‘the Romani čhib’. Why is this the case? A preliminary
answer could be found in the problem of standardising the Romani language, especially vexed
when the individuals leading the way do not have the backing or benefit of an institutional
framework – educational, governmental or otherwise. More often than not, authors ‘translate’ and
transform themselves in their literary expression when they choose to write in one or more of the
other languages they have learned and lived in, within their respective countries of residence.
Inevitably, tensions and questions arise with regard to the politics, power relations and
ideologies that exist between the social agents of literary and translation production and
reception, specifically in terms of Romani language dialects, national languages, scripts and
alphabets, and their constant relation to a global language such as English. Moreover, Romani
literary production – whether expressed in local Romani language dialects, a standardized version
of Romani, in other national languages, or in translation – occupies a very small and fragmented
niche in terms of global literary production (including translations). It becomes necessary to
question and describe the specific historical specificities and conditions for production that exist
in each area. An accurate portrayal of global Romani literary production and the role of
translation would require research and analysis of the dynamics specific to each individual
country or region.

4
 While an international perspective is beyond the scope of this dissertation, I hope that this
focus on the Western Balkans – which is the origin of much existing literary production and
translation of Romani writers thus far – can provide an initial framework for investigating some
or all of the questions urgently needing to be addressed. In line with these priorities, the poets and
poems I have chosen for analysis will highlight a conceptual reframing of self-translation in a
multilingual context with reference to Roma. The research questions I favour in my work are
complex in their apparent simplicity, but constitute a first step in addressing issues of translation
from within a Romani perspective and translation studies. What are the reasons that many
Romani writers write in a Romani language dialect? Why and to what extent are they ‘translating
themselves’ and ‘transforming themselves’ in their literary expression? What is the role of self-
translation in Romani literary expression and aesthetics?
By considering some aspects and features of the various, emergent ‘systems’ of Romani
literary authorial production and translation in the Balkans through the descriptive research
process in TS, we can begin to more systematically observe and understand the different relations
that emerge between source language(s) and target language(s) production and readerships in a
fluid transnational cultural space.
Research in TS has begun to build on its foundation of linguistic and literary research in
bilingualism and multilingualism to consider practices of self-translation from a new angle. New
ideas and concepts such as “translingualism” and “translanguaging” are also emerging. (Wei
2014, Canagarajah 2011, Garcia and Wei 2014). They are directly related to bilingual and
multilingual manipulation of language and cultural codes as social practices. In addition to
pursuing questions of translation for the first time in a Romani context, my work also suggests
that translanguaging and translingualism can reflect the Romani poetic experience and condition
of knowing and living between languages and cultures.
This dissertation comprises an introduction, four chapters and a conclusion: Translation
Studies and Romani writing, (Chapter I), The Romani language (Romani čhib) (Chapter II), A
linguistic-literary, self-reflexive translation studies methodology for a critique of Romani writing
in translation (Chapter III), and Critical translation analyses of Romani poetry (Chapter IV).
The first chapter considers various TS approaches but focuses principally on those most
useful for analysis of the multilingual poems and discussion on Romani translation within the
analytical frameworks of TS.

5
 The second chapter presents general information on Romani čhib, Romani writing and
literature, and specific information concerning Romani language in the Balkans. Included is
information on Romani dialects, neologisms, loanwords in Romani, and the contact language
effect. The chapter likewise discusses Romani literary production, categories such as 'Romani
writer' and 'Romani literary writing', and questions the connection between ‘mother tongue’ and
the language(s) of translation from a translation approach.
Chapter III introduces critical approaches to Romani writing in translation. Thinking
about the way how best to analyse the participants in research i.e. Romani poets and self-
translators, I found myself thinking about my way of writing and my experience which is not so
much different as theirs are. It meant that my involvement in this work as a researcher, writer,
self-translator and translator was also a part of the same large Romani community as my
participants were. My intention was to raise up silenced voices through Romani representation
and self-representation, hoping to be understood, and to motivate cultural change. It arose the
questions about relevance of personal background, of subjectivity and validity of this work. My
inspiration to be involved with multiple identities in this work, as a researcher, participant and as
a critic, brought me to ethnography and autoethnography approaches which are complementing
each other. Through the relevance of personal background and importance of biographies and
autobiographies, reflexivity and self-reflexivity, I found the way with the others of accomplishing
wider cultural, social and political understanding. That allows me to use the first person narrative
in my work. A linguistic-literary analysis introduces the widely used word-for-word Vinay’s and
Darbelnet’s translation procedure which also raised other questions such as comparison,
importance of equivalence in self-translation, motives, readership etc. In the proposal of typology
of critique considering subjectivity, identity and self-consciousness in literary scene, I pointed out
the issue of critics in the practice of self-translation in Romani context, and paid attention to the
practice of self-translation which presents self-translation in Romani context.
Chapter IV analyses the poems of four selected multilingual, self- translating poets who
speak and write in different Romani dialects. In the chapter, I provide their biographical
information and short histories of their literary production. Through linguistic and literary,
ethnographical and autoethnographical analyses, self-translations and self-analyses of the poets’
own poems, I explore concepts of translation in a multilingual context within Romani čhib and

6
Romani translation, giving also a short introduction of new concepts of translingualism and
translanguaging in translation within the Romani context.
My assertion is that Romani poets/writers engage in an act of active self-translation as an
almost natural part of their writing, and an outward expression of their multilingual selves. Their
poems, written in Romani čhib dialects, and composed as an original text alongside their self-
translations, complement one another. Subsequent self-translations of self-translations continue a
chain of complementarity.
By positioning my research within the frameworks of translation and multilingualism, I
seek to propose a preliminary model of analysis and critique for Romani literary expression in
self-translation from within the Romani community. Self-translation, in this case, can be seen as
a kind of decolonising6 response, one performed in a ‘translingual’ space of personal and
collective recovery, healing, and development – a reclaiming of identity against historical
legacies of marginalisation, discrimination, repression and even genocide. It is also ‘always
already political’ (Denzin at all. 2008, 3), and “research is always already both moral and
political” (Denzin 2005, 934). Indigenous self-translator’s voice self-represents and aknowledges
the truth seen within eyes, experience and knowledge from one’s own community. So does also
Romani self-translator’s voice self-represents and acknowledges truth and experience producing
knowledge seen and observed with the Romani eyes.
In that way producing the Romani knowledge decolonizing response helps me also to
realize where the position of myself is. I am totally aware that this position is in-between. I am at
the same time both, a researcher and the researched. At the same time I experience
marginalization and otherness but also privileges to recognize the need to give and present my
voice, Romani voice in a Romani community and outside the Romani community, which is a call
for “the pressing need for scholars to decolonize and deconstruct those structures within the
Western academy that privilege Western knowledge systems and their epistemologies [...]
making Western systems of knowledge the object of inquiry” (Denzin 2005, 936).
Writing autoethographies in self-translations in my thesis I bring out the question of
producing knowledge by Romani researchers attaching it to the academic structures where
personal and professional life and experience are on the path be to decolonized and to be met.

6
Denzin, Norman K., Yvonna S. Lincoln and Linda Tuhiwai Smith, eds. (2008). Critical-Indigenous Methodologies.
Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore: SAGE.

7
CHAPTER I – TRANSLATION STUDIES AND ROMANI WRITING

Despite constant migration, abandonment, marginalization and discrimination, Romani

people , the Roma, have preserved their language, Romani,8 customs, beliefs, culture and
7

traditions. In environments where they have not been persecuted, tortured or killed, they settled
with their families and created Romani settlements, eventually merging urban culture with
traditional rituals. Within the rights and obligations established by majority society governments,
education was mandatory. Roma began to be educated and gradually their commitment to literacy
grew. The result has been an increased sense of the value of one’s own culture and tradition. In
its own specific way, use of the Romani language is making it possible to create the history of the
Roma in a written form, by Roma themselves, and allowing them to present their written creative
work.
Since the goal of my dissertation is to provide an adequate understanding and analysis of
the Romani language translation in the general context of literary translation, and in the act of
self-translation, in poetry in particular, it is necessary to consider some of the conceptual
frameworks that translation studies provide in order to gain insights into their application in the
Romani context.
It should be born in mind that historically Romani people9 have not had their own nation-
state, that the history of their migration has spread them geographically widely around the world,
and that their position as ‘others’ has brought them into the sphere and status of ethnic groups or

7
Romani people – “Roma- a European nation with Indian roots. The Indian origin and affiliation of the Roma is
most obvious linguistically, by the language still spoken by many members of this heterogeneous ethnicity. The
Roma consist of various groups, which are labeled with different ethnonyms-self designations as well as external
designations: Arlije, Calé, Gurbet, Kaale, Kalderaš, Lovara, Manuš, Sepečides, Sinti, Ursari, etc.; many groups also
use the self-designation Roma. Usually all these designations are summarized- sometimes even together with
population groups of non-Indian origin-by pejorative denomination ‘Gypsies’.” [Romani] Project-Dieter W.
Halwachs.
8
“Romani, the common language of the Roma, the Sinti, the Kale and other European population group summarised
by the pejorative denomination gypsies, belongs to the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European language family and
is the only New-Indo-Aryan language spoken exclusively outside of the Indian subcontinent.” (Zatreanu and
Halwachs 2003, 3).
9
“The Roma are a non-territorial nation whose common language is in the process of becoming standardizes, and for
whom extant traditional practices and self-identification are as diffuse as their dynamic expressions in relation to
dominant cultures.” (Cynthia Levine-Rasky and Hedina Tahirović-Sijerčić, “Introduction”, in A Romani Women’s
Anthology: Spectrum of the Blue Water, Inanna Publications and Education Inc.: Toronto, Canada, 2017, 8).

8
national minorities in the countries they live. It is evident that the language they speak, Romani
čhib, has survived only in the context of their bilingualism and/or multilingualism.
While investigating the history of translation theories, I realized that there were
advantages of individual theories and concepts, as well as shortcomings, which were important to
consider in my work. As I grew to understand and compare them, it became clear that in the
context of my experience and research, some of them were complementary and dependent on
each other, analogous to a reading of the Romani poetry texts themselves, where original and
self-translations complement and depend on one another. By understanding and analysing
translation studies theoretical frameworks in relation to Romani čhib and writing, I hope to make
a contribution to current translation studies research from a transnational perspective that is
guided by literary, multilingual, and sociologically-oriented paradigms through the lens of self-
reflexivity.

1.1 Translation as a practice

Traditional definitions in the field have implied an understanding of translation as the

transformation from one source language (SL) text into one target language (TL) text often from
the vantage point of monolingual target speakers and readers. (Gambier and van Doorslaer 2010,
Munday 2012, Millán and Bartrina eds. 2013, Baker and Saldanha eds. 1998/2009/2011). The
translation process has been seen as a transfer and transformation of linguistic and cultural codes
from one language system into another, taking into account the cultural codes and practices
associated with each language. The concept of translation in early translation studies research
generally implied a one-to-one correspondence of language in terms of nation-state or culture
with an emphasis on standard language. This concept implied transfer from one national context
into another, expressed through the historically prevalent strategies of ‘literal’ or ‘free’, and more
recent ‘foreignisation’ or ‘domestication’, without fully problematizing the ‘original source
language’ (Venuti 1995, 1998, Bassnet and Lefevere 1990, Munday 2008, 2012). The ‘cultural
turn’ in TS (1990s) would introduce contemporary issues and debates from literary and cultural
studies, and in so doing highlight postcolonial, gender, and power dynamics and relations as
constructed through language and discourse.
However, it was reading Israeli scholar Itamar Even-Zohar’s (1990, 47) call to consider
the “innovative role [of translation] within the target language” that initially provided me with a

9
path to start thinking about Romani literature and its translation, and about the approaches to
translation possible in the Romani context (see Chapter II on literature). Within his theoretical
framework of polysystems, Even-Zohar, cited in Pym (2010, 72), sees translation playing an
innovative role when: “(a) a polysystem has not yet been crystallized, that is to say, when a
literature is ‘young,’ in the process of being established; (b) a literature is either ‘peripheral’
(within a large group of correlated literatures) or ‘weak,’ or both; and (c) there are turning points,
crises, or literary vacuums in a literature.” Contrary to homogeneous, static systems, the
polysystem is proposed as a system that is “heterogeneous and dynamic […], emphasiz[ing] the
multiplicity of intersections […] and stress[ing] that in order for a system to function, uniformity
need not be postulated.” (Even-Zohar 1990, 12). It recognizes the need to ground theoretical
abstraction in concrete local, historical contexts. It accounts for bilingual and multilingual
communities. As noted further by Pym (2010, 151) elaborating on Even-Zohar, “a textual model
from one system is not just used in another; it is integrated into the relations of the host system
and thereby both undergoes and generates change […with] transfer seen as occurring both within
and between systems.”
The literature of and written by Roma, once exclusively traditional and oral, only started
to be published in the 20th century (Djurić 2010, 6). Compared to the more developed literary
systems in languages with which Romani is in contact, the Romani literature ‘system’ is “young”
and still in the process of establishing itself: it is “peripheral” and “weak”. The existence of
literary vacuums until the 20th century, including the invisibility of Romani literature within the
contexts of other national literatures, is a tangible product of their history. “Romani literature”
has been predominantly characterized by the literature written by others occupying a more central
position in the global circulation of knowledge. Given that Roma have little to no opportunity of
being educated in a Romani language institution anywhere, the central literary positions are those
occupied by literatures of diverse nation-states and national languages. The few literary works
(comparatively speaking) that Roma write are often not in the Romani language, except at times
for poetry, a main reason why poetry was selected for analysis in this dissertation.
A polysystems approach helps to discover and differentiate the multiple systems that
intersect within the broader constellation of works to be included under the category of Romani
literature. They include works in various national canons of literature produced in many different
languages around the world, works produced in diverse Romani dialects and written in different

10
scripts, and works translated into and from Romani. The production of Romani literature in one
or more Romani dialects is small, young, and peripheral. According to Even-Zohar, translation
production, i.e. subsystem within the greater literary polysystem, is generally and proportionately
smaller. The translation of Romani literature into and from the various Romani dialects is even
smaller, with self-translation –the focus of my dissertation analysis– occupying a very important
role.

1.2 Source and target relations

Understanding the more ‘systemic’ approach furnished by Even-Zohar (1978, 1990) led
me to the conceptual frameworks proposed by another Israeli scholar, Gideon Toury, and known
within the broader category of Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS). While linguistic theoretical
frameworks laid the early foundation for TS, DTS sought to describe rather than prescribe the
shifts, modifications, and effects of translation as a source text was translated into a target text.
Toury describes translation as a “norm-governed activity”, where norms refer to the adherence
and transfer of certain values and ideas deemed or accepted as appropriate by a source or target
community in a given situation. In a situation of translation, Toury proposes,
[t]he ‘value of translation […] may be described as consisting of two principles whose
realizations are interwoven in an almost inseparable way: the production of a text in a
particular culture/language which is designed to occupy a certain position, or fill a
certain slot, in the host culture, while at the same time, constituting a representation in
that language/culture of a text already existing in some other language, belonging to a
different culture and occupying a definable position within it. (Toury 2012, 69)

The two principles Toury refers to are “adequacy” and “acceptability”, constituting what he
defines as the “initial norm”. While translating a work, a translator may lean towards adequacy
and adhere to the norms and textual relationships of the source text, and/or lean towards
acceptability, that is to say, the norms that originate and act in the target culture itself. (Toury
2012, 79) As summarized in Munday (2012, 189), “[Toury’s] TT-oriented theoretical framework
combines linguistic comparison of ST and TT and consideration of the cultural framework of the
TT [with an] aim to identify the patterns of behaviour in the translation and thereby to
‘reconstruct’ the norms at work in the translation process.”
Patterns of behaviour reflect norms which can in turn lead to the formulation of ‘laws’,
two of which are the law of growing standardisation and the law of interference (Toury 1985,

11
1995). The law of growing standardisation emphasizes target texts, observing that translations
“manifest greater standardisation than their source” (Toury 1995, 274). Pym (2010, 82) explains
that in this view, translations are “simpler, flatter, less structured, less ambiguous” when
compared to non-translations, and that the more peripheral their status, the more they tend to
“accommodate to established models and repertoires” (Toury 1995, 274). Toury’s second law,
the law of interference, observes that “phenomena pertaining to the make-up of the source text
tend to be transferred to the target text” (Ibid., 282), i.e. translations have elements and words
from their source texts. He speaks about “replac[ing] source-text textemes with ad hoc
combinations” (Ibid., 281) which are equivalent and acceptable to the target culture and which
fulfil functions in the target language(s). Tolerance of these source text elements and words is
very high even though equivalence very often is not met. As Pym (2008) notes, both the law of
standardisation and the law of interference depend on sociocultural factors and they are subject to
social conditions.
While norms and ‘laws’ cannot yet be wholly used as a method of analysis for the Romani
context due to a very limited number of Romani literary works actually published, thinking about
the source and target cultures in terms of norms provided me with additional translation context.
For example, the Romani language is not resistant to interference, and both writing and
translation in Romani can tend to be coloured by a majority target language (depending on
specific individual regions) and the social conditions in which Roma have historically lived.
From a more target-oriented perspective, a norms approach raises multiple questions as to the
target reader culture, and which criteria for norms would actually constitute an adequacy or
acceptability analysis. To what extent would a translator take into consideration the needs of
different target reader cultures? In terms of translation reality, Romani čhib and its translation can
be considered as peripheral, and Romani culture as (sub)culture, one historically marginalized
and represented by (o)thers who have historically stereotyped them. Romani translation has
found its own place, in its own (sub)culture, among its own people, through a model of
translation that is uniquely bound to and within the Romani community. It expresses itself,
especially in literary form, by the act of self-translation.

12
1.3 Readerships, translators and reception

My readings of translation studies and target-oriented approaches in TS led me to

contemplate more seriously on the role of the reader in a Romani literary context. Who reads
literary works authored and/or translated by Romani writers, whether written in the Romani
language or in a non-Romani language? How do readers receive and respond to the literary work?
What do publishing houses actually imply by publishing a Romani work? How to interpret the
fact that no body of literary criticism exists for Romani literature written and/or translated in the
Romani language? How to examine the role of the Romani translator as a reader who writes
through translation for a different set of readers in another language/culture?
Reception Theory (Rezeptionästhetik) was first introduced in Germany in the 1960s and
early 1970s by the literary theorist Hans-Robert Jauss. Its focus shifted from the interaction
between author and the text to one between the text and its reader or reading public. It takes into
account the collective social effects of art in a specified historical time with the attention paid to
the moral values that exist within cultural-sociological settings. Another Reception Theory
approach was introduced through the Konstanz School. It is associated with the concept
‘Lehrstelle' (Textual Gaps) proposed by Wolfgang Iser. He was concerned with the many
unexplained things in a text, i.e. the gaps in a text that readers fill in a subjective way in order to
actively and constructively receive its meanings. Around the same time, scholars in the U.S. were
developing Reader Response Criticism, to investigate and conceptualize the reactions and
experiences of readers when reading texts. What effects does the reading have on a reader? One
of the movement’s most influential scholars, Stanley Fish, proposes a reader profile that is
particularly useful when thinking about translators.

[M]y reader is a construct, an ideal or idealized reader; somewhat like Wardhaugh's

"mature reader" or Milton's "fit" reader, or to use a term of my own, the reader is the
informed reader. The informed reader is someone who
1. is a competent speaker of the language out of which the text is built.
2. is in full possession of "the semantic knowledge that a mature...listener brings to his
task of comprehension." This includes the knowledge (that is, the experience, both as a
producer and comprehender) of lexical sets, collocational probabilities, idioms,
professional and other dialects, etc.
3. has literary competence (Fish 1980, 86-87).

13
As “informed readers”, translators (as well as critics) interpret a text and construct its meaning
through the act of reading. They interpret an author’s textual cues to assist them in understanding
as closely as possible the meaning, or potential meanings, that the author tries to convey. Reader
response criticism furthermore stresses the subjectivity of the reading experience, where not only
two individual readers could have two different interpretations; a reader who re-reads the same
work some years later may also have an interpretation that is different from an earlier reading, in
part based on his or her subsequent experiences and knowledge of life.
Reader-response criticism likewise takes into consideration social practices and the readers’
environments, including the diverse religious, social and cultural values that affect reading
(Kennedy and Gioia, 1995). If, as Toury explains, translation is a norm-guided activity, with
translators adhering or distancing themselves according to the two principles of adequacy and
acceptability, then a focus on the translator’s act of reading the ST becomes an important one.
The reception of the translated literary (or non-literary) work cannot be explained solely in
textual terms; the reader and his or her social environment and experience matter. Kenesei
(2010), focusing on the reception of poetry, notes how similarity and difference between the
cultures of the ST and TT would come to bear on the translator who mediates two cultures:

[…] the more common features the two cultures share, the easier the adaptation of the
poem to the target culture. Not only are the common cultural roots to be considered but the
topic or the message of the poem, too. The deeper the poem’s connections are in a
historical or traditional background, the bigger the challenge for the translator to transfer
the message to those readers in the target language. (2010, xx)

The focus on reception and readers is an important area of concern in TS, including DTS which
examines how translated texts function in the target culture. A translation that is viewed as a
product of the target context, within the receiving culture, can highlight the role that translation
has in helping to create the identity of the target culture. Reception in the target culture is marked
by readership, but also by publishers and other histories such as the history of publishing, the
history of the book, and the history of reading, with the associated social and economic factors
they imply (Chan in Angelelli and Baer 2016, 89). Reflecting on how the focus of reception
theory could change, Chan notes that “Perhaps we will see, at long last, some shift in the writing
of reception history, away from the translator who reads, toward the reader who translates”

14
(Chan in Angelelli and Baer 2016, 91). In the Romani context, this move to start from the reader
who translates could easily begin with Romani self-translators.
Reception and Reader Response theoretical approaches in TS are valuable for thinking
about pertinent questions on translation and reading in the Romani context. While it may still be
too early to frame one’s analysis of Romani literary writing with these theories due to the sparse
literary production, the questions themselves are useful. Romani literature, for instance, does not
yet have an adequately written history by Roma; oral history may have more immediate
relevance in many cases. Literary literacy is not widespread. Publishing in Romani is still very
modest and disparate, with publishing by official or well-known national publishers usually
revolving around the Romani non-governmental organizations.
The situation of Romani readership is one of great concern. It is difficult to ascertain
general expectations in terms of reception, because needs are neither being met for non-Romani
readers and readerships or Romani readers and readerships. Until Roma create their own canon of
literature in Romani and until Romani literary writing is included in the national canons of
literature of other nations, it will have no general readership, and the questions about reception in
a Romani context will stay unanswered. It is necessary to form a proper readership among
different Romani groups according to the dialects that Romani writers/poets write and self-
translators translate. An appropriate readership needs to have knowledge about dialects. A history
of Romani interpretation and ‘reading’ of meaning might not begin with text. Historically, Roma
groups moving from one location to another left non-textual signs that were not necessarily easily
interpreted by other Roma groups who could be following in their paths.
[M]eanings varied and a specific tribe’s symbols and signs, as well as their culture and
differences in dialects, lifestyle, traditions, beliefs and habits, were not known by others.
(Tahirović-Sijerčić 2014, 78-79)

Romani readership today remains more specific than general, and needs to be further researched.
Romani poets, self-translators and translators create their own readerships on an individual level,
depending on their personal ability to attract people. They share memories and experiences. As
TS scholars Brems and Ramos Pinto note, “[s]haring a writer’s/poet’s memories with the readers
or audience is the only advantage in the process of reading, and reception stays at an individual,
subjective level which focuses on real readers (Brems and Ramos Pinto 2013, 142-147). At the
same time, an author’s readership is progressively created. The act of writing in Romani čhib and

15
self-translating into a non-Romani language also play an important role in propagating Romani
culture and identity, in cultivating and feeling the sense of an ethnic belonging to Roma, and in
transferring a message to readers in non-Romani culture/s. Using a non-Romani (or majority)
language is likewise connected to the need to reach out as much as possible to non-Romani
readers, and to create non-Romani readership and criticism.
My readings of descriptive translation studies and target-oriented functionalist approaches
in TS have also led me to contemplate more seriously the role of the translator in a Romani non-
literary context. “Skopos theory” emerged in the 1980s, and places heavy emphasis on the ‘aim’
or ‘purpose’ (‘skopos’) that guides the production of a translation. According to this perspective,
it is the target culture which “defines [a translation’s] adequacy” (Vermeer in Venuti 2000, 222).
In this sense, the function of the ST is not necessarily the same as the function of the TT. In fact,
a single ST can have varying skopoi and thus multiple TTs, each of which can be considered to
be a translation. If multiple translations for multiple purposes can exist for a single ST, then the
‘authority’ of the ST is diluted and destabilised; the ‘correct’ way to translate depends on its
function-to-be in the target culture.
Toury claims that all translational phenomena can be seen in translators’ involvement to
the textual relations and norms embodied in the source text (adequacy), or to the relation in which
the translators’ follow the linguistics and rhetorical norms of the target language and culture
(acceptability). (Toury 1995, 56). The central role in the translation process is given to the
translator i.e. “‘the’ expert in translational action” (Vermeer in Venuti 2000, 228), as the only
person who can make the decisions on how and if something is to be translated. Holz-Mänttäri
prefers the translator being considered to be the expert in cross-cultural communication, in a
consultative position that views translation as more than the act of translating, editing, and
adapting (Venuti 2000, 216). The translator should be aware that many different goals exist, and
that the goal(s) determine(s) how and why many translations can emerge from a single ST. “The
Skopos rule thus reads as follows: translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables your
text/translation to function in the situation in which it is used and with the people who want to
use it and precisely in the way they want it to function. (Vermeer 1989, 20; translation from Nord
1997, 29).” (Pym 2010, 45). A very important role of translator is his/her communicative
interaction between members of two different cultures as the only one who has a knowledge of

16
both (Nord 2013, 205). It question of responsibility i.e. of ‘loyalty’ as a moral mission in which a
translator informs the readership about any changes.
The guiding principle of different purposes inspiring the creation of different translations
in target cultures is manifested in two ways in the Romani context. On one hand, Romani people
have been translated and represented by others both literally and metaphorically. From a Romani
perspective, a ‘purpose-oriented’ translation focus can and does spark mistrust, as Roma have not
had much opportunity to ‘translate’ and represent themselves. The decisions of who translates,
what should be translated and how, are not always controlled by Roma or by Roma who
understand the implications and effects of translation on the target readership. On the other hand,
Roma who have now begun to write, translate, and represent themselves guide the ‘purpose’ of
their translations and the translation processes. In literary expression, it is manifested as self-
translation. Nord’s concept of ‘loyalty’ i.e. moral mission of translators, becomes very important
in my work, especially in its relation to ethnography and autoethnography, as related to the
questions about responsibility of self-translators, representation and self-representation,
consciousness and self-consciousness mirrored in reflexivity and self-reflexivity.
Thinking about Romani translation in the context of a Skopos-oriented framework raises
other considerations. Purposes are clearly different and first dependent on directionality, whether
Romani is being translated (and by whom) into majority language(s) or whether source texts
written in majority language(s) are translated into Romani. Translation implies a not-yet-
standardized Romani written with many elements and words incorporated from other non-
Romani majority language(s) due to its historical linguistic trajectory and to the fact that Romani
is always a minority language by default. Readers within a given translation’s targeted readership
are not homogeneous, with Romani readerships and general readerships not being the same in
each country. This complicates research on which and whose needs and expectations are being
met, and what is considered to be acceptable. Skopos approaches can assist in clarifying these
heterogenous conditions and ambiguities.

However, as observed rightly by TS scholars, Skopos theory can be critiqued for its non-
inclusion of literary texts (Nord 1997, 109-22), whose purpose (including notions of aesthetics)
are more complex. It tends to reflect the different translation purposes associated with everyday,
non-literary texts, with an emphasis on quality and accuracy of information that does not
necessarily place as high a value on style. While non-literary Romani translation is not within the

17
scope of my dissertation, it is worth mentioning that multiple purposes in this context could be
addressed in a future research. Because of common Romani bilingualism and/or multilingualism
and the way different dialects are used in Romani writing, the decisions on if and how to translate
often arise. They bring with them complicated questions like the purpose of translation and/or
self-translation, what the target culture is, what the source culture is, and if the target culture is
flexible and changeable or both.

1.4 Problematizing translation relationships

As developed over time, it began to integrate many of the perspectives and approaches
being adopted within various social, cultural and literary movements – including post-
structuralism, postcolonial, cultural studies, and the social sciences – calling for
interdisciplinarity (Hermans 1999, 146) and for researchers “not [to] be wholly neutral, detached,
objective or external” in their analyses of translation practice. In the scope of literary work by
Romani authors/writers in Romani čhib and their translation, translation has played very different
roles in very different historical and cultural contexts. The ‘cultural turn’ in TS (Snell-Hornby,
2006a) provides additional insights. This turn focuses on analysing the cultural effects in and of
translation, where translation does not happen in a vacuum or in isolation but as part of “an
ongoing process of intercultural transfer”, one that “rarely, if ever, involves a relationship of
equality between texts, authors or systems” (Bassnett and Trivedi 1999, 2). According to Bassnett
and Lefevere, translation

is 'felt' to be the process of acculturation, in which translation has, traditionally,

been seen as a key element, takes place not just between cultures, but also inside a
given culture, any given culture. (1998, 9)

This passage proves enlightening for the Romani context. Throughout history, Romani people
have always depended on translation, and through processes of translation they have entered into
the cultures of others due to the fact that they have always been living in the other's geographical
space, in the other's national states, and within the other’s cultures and languages. To survive,
they have needed to constantly participate in processes of translation, emerging as bilingual or
multilingual, which is what they have been traditionally and historically. Consequently, Romani
translation has taken place between different cultures and between different languages but also

18
inside their own culture due to cultural and dialect differences, the result of practices of
migration, forced migration, and internal displacement.
The prolific “cultural turn” in TS changes the perspective on the position of translation,
which is no longer seen just as a linguistic transfer of texts on a presumed basis of equality, but as
a strategy that links two cultures with potentially unequal status in society and an unequal power
relationship (Asad in Clifford and Marcus 1986, 141-164). National histories, including the
literary histories and cultural histories of two and very often more cultures, can have very
different perceptions of translation. As Pym notes, the “cultural turn” nevertheless remains as
“part of the intellectual background of the descriptive paradigm” and the term itself “was
proposed by Snell-Hornby [1990] and legitimated by Lefevere and Bassnett [1990] whereby TS
should focus on the cultural effects of translation” (Pym, 2010, 149). The historical presence of
Romani culture has depended overwhelmingly on target cultures of mostly non-Romani culture.
The cultural turn does open up pertinent questions on rewriting, on the question of what
constitutes a translation, on the different meanings in translation, on self-translation, on gender
and translation, and on language and identity.
These questions of translation are very important in the Romani context. Power
relationships between majority and minority cultures explain the position of the Romani
language, culture and translation. Self-translation emerged in response to the need for the Romani
voice, raised by the Romani culture’s own writers and authors, to be heard. At the same time, the
voices of self-translators and translators of Romani origin struggle against an unequal status in
society and unequal opportunities for development. The socio-political status of countries where
Roma live creates and determines the nature and extent of the Romani culture’s development and
raises questions on Romani cultural identity.
Translation has also been seen “as a metaphor for post-colonial writing”
(Tymoczko 1999, 19), where questions on the colonized and oppressed, margins and centre, and
silenced voices have been addressed. The postcolonial context takes into account linguistic and
cultural diversity, power relations and ideologies, including discussions on ‘minority’ languages
in relation to ‘majority’ audiences. The postcolonial theoretical frameworks for the study of
literary texts and their translation, and concepts such as ‘third space’, ‘hybridity’, ‘in-
betweenness’, and ‘cultural differences’ bring out the power of translation, one based on the
“performative nature of cultural communication” (Bhabha 1994, 326) in relation to cultural

19
identity. Sensitive to the ‘instability’ of language and meaning, they investigate the relationships
within and between texts, and on the translator and his or her position. More recently,
postcolonial literature seen as “world literature”, in practice mostly English-language
postcolonial literature (D'haen 2012, 90), is being critiqued for the permanent records it can make
on diaspora, migrancy, border-crossings, in-betweenness, and hybridity. Questions on the use of
language in translation continue to be raised for writers from the periphery. Spivak, for example,
in “Politics of Translation” (1993) claims that translation undermines the ‘Third World’ culture
and makes stronger the dominance and power of English. Some authors adopt the language of
the colonizer, some of them move from periphery to the centre adapting the language of the
centre for their “own purpose” (Williams 2013, 29), as in the case of Salman Rushdie (1991, 17).
Some of them are “endlessly creating” themselves (Bhabha, 1994, 8). The very ideology of the
cultural turn can therefore be seen as a part of postcolonial translation discourse.
The postcolonial context as addressed by TS can potentially and partially address some of
the Romani specificities, but there are some shortcomings which make it not entirely applicable
to the Romani context. For example, Romani čhib is not indigenous to a national territory.
Romani čhib and culture do not have the same type of colonization history as many of the types
of nation-states and territories studied in the postcolonial context. Most notably, Romani čhib and
culture manifest themselves in specific geographical areas in different ways due to histories of
migration (Matras 2005) still being investigated and written. Since the TS postcolonial literature
does not deal comprehensively with migration, the approach has its shortcomings in this respect.
Within the scope of world literature as a projection of Western thought (D'haen 2012),
postcolonial theory can potentially bring into consideration and into question the invisibility of
Romani literature in the canon of world literature (see Chapter II). The lens of world literature
might serve as a way by which to study how cultures recognize themselves through their
projections of “otherness” (Bhabha 1994, 12). More critically, however, the use of English as a
required lingua franca for studying world literature through works such as anthologies would not
apply to Romani. “In Death of a Discipline (2003) Spivak enlarged on her suspicions regarding
the use of English as the necessary lingua franca for the study of world literature through
anthologies” (D’haen (2012, 87), which would also apply to Romani written work, because
written and translated published works in Romani and the Slavic languages generally come from

20
the region of former Yugoslavia.10 Nonetheless, postcolonial critiques on power, political
agendas, and international relations have had an important impact on reconceptualizing
translation (Williams 2013, 30) and multilingualism (D'haen 2012, 22).
The “cultural turn” in TS has at times intersected with the sociological approaches in TS.
They have focussed on 'texts' rather than on translators, and additionally on sociology,
sociolinguistics or cultural analysis. (Pym, 2004)
As Wolf (2014) states, the “sociological turn” sees translation as a social practice and
foregrounds the role of agents in the translation process:
Gradually, the conviction took shape that any translation is necessarily bound up within
social contexts: on the one hand, the act of translating, in all its various stages, is
undeniably carried out by individuals who belong to a social system; on the other the
translation phenomenon is inevitably implicated in social institutions, which greatly
determine the selection, production, and distribution of translation, and, as a result, the
strategies adopted in the translation itself. […] [A] series of works […] have contributed to
the emergence of a ‘translation sociology’ and have brought about important insights into
the construction of a public discourse on translation and the self-image of translators and
especially onto the translation process itself […] (see Gouanvic 1999, Inghilleri 2003, Wolf
and Fukari 2007, Pym, Shlesinger, and Simeoni 2008.) (Wolf in Angelelli, 2014, 10-11)

The sociological approaches to translation in TS foreground translation processes in social

theories investigating society in terms of diverse social spaces and social configurations.
Bourdieu’s concepts of field, capital, habitus, and illusion have (Bourdieu, 1977) been
productively used to investigate the roles of various social agents in translation and interpreting.
Ethnographic approaches (Fynn, 2010) consider agency and reflexive practices that underscore
the subjectivity of individuals involved in or analysing the translation process and context. An
ethnographer can adapt and use a mix of methods appropriate to a situation and as a participant
observer is socially and physically immersed in the case to accumulate local knowledge, must be
constantly self-critical and reflexive to ensure an analytical description and interpretation of the
case.

Since there is no universal and general translation theory or approach that can be applied
to all translations, and because of differences which have to be investigated within the context of
different languages and cultures, in addition to the balance of power between cultures

10
Since I analyse the poets from former Yugoslavia this applies just for former Yugoslavia.

21
(Tymoczko 1998), Tymoczko’s more recent and non-systems oriented ‘cluster concept’ of
translation (2007/2010/2014)) is useful insofar as it purports not to prescribe in advance what
constitutes and does not constitute a translation, thereby providing equal conceptual status to
translations from all cultures internationally. ). Tymoczko builds on Toury who “opened the way
for cultural self-definition within the field of translation studies [...] beyond Eurocentic positions
giving permission to self-representation regarding the basic data of translation by people who
know it best in their cultures” (Tymoczko in Hermans ed. 2006, 21).
The cluster concept approach to translation also gives a framework for an ethical
internationalization of the field of translation studies, allowing for self-definition of
translation by all cultures thus far been dominated by Western logocentrism. (Tymoczko
2007/2010/2014, 105)

The cluster concept allows translation theory to include related translations which are very close
to the ST and those which are very free, operating ‘at the rank of the word’ and ‘at the rank of the
entire text, and so on’, inviting a cross-cultural conceptual approach that includes concepts and
self-definitions of translation that are marginalized (Tymoczko 2007/2010/2014, 98). This
approach seems able to provide a conceptual space where the Romani context can be
investigated, including the translational relationship that metaphorically extends to the broader
context of ‘a people translated’.

1.5 Self-translation

The concepts of translation and equivalence in the Western tradition have undergone many
transformations and turns (linguistic, cultural, sociological, etc.) during the formation and history
of TS as an academic discipline. Within these turns, an important, recent shift in thought entails
reconsidering the practice of self-translation in terms of bilingualism and bilingual writing
(Condirgley 2013, Grutman 2013, Hokenson and Munson 2007, Râbacov 2013). Hokenson and
Munson suggest that a bilingual person

“designate[s] anyone who, in addition to speaking and writing one language

idiomatically, has acquired a high degree of control over the spoken and written
forms of a second language and [...] has authored work in both languages.“
(Hokenson and Munson 2007, 12).

22
 Following Hokenson and Munson (2007, 14) bilingual writers are “authors who compose
texts in both languages, and translate their texts between those languages,” being able to “write in
both languages with near-native handling of grammar, idioms, discursive registers, and stylistic
and literary traditions” (Ibid.). As bilingualism and biculturalism are prerequisites for self-
translation and are often a result of exile, migration and displacement (Butler 2013, Williams
2013), they also touch on complex questions of identity. Bilingual writers, i.e. authors-translators,
their languages and cultures are constantly and repeatedly in connections, and while using self-
translation as strategy they “explore their specific linguistic condition: a bilingual or fragmented
identity.” (Tassiopoulos 2011, 43-44). It is a necessity that self-translation can be studied in
relation to concepts of language, culture and society.

Self-translation is usually understood and defined in its most basic form as a product and
act of translating one’s own writing into another language, i.e. “the translation of an original
work into another language by the author himself” which “cannot be regarded as a variant of the
original text but as a true translation ([1976]: 19)” (Montini 2010, 306). Thinking about self-
translation and self-translator raises many questions such as: what is self-translation, is self-
translation a translation, is self-translation a true translation, what terminology use is appropriate,
in which way translation would be done if the text was translated by an ordinary translator, what
is the value of self-translation, etc.?
Rainier Grutman (2009a) considers that
[t]he term ‘self-translation’ can refer both to the act of translating one’s own writings into
another language and the result of such an undertakings.[...] Since self-translation involves
an equally important decision, it may prove useful to consider, in addition to the actual use
authors make of their languages, the attitudes and feelings they develop towards them.
(2009a, 257)

Decision making about the use of languages involves feelings toward them, and feelings to
make decision about the use of appropriate terminology. Diversity in the use of terminology in
self-translation for texts such as the ‘autotranslation’ and ‘true translation’ that Koller (1979)
used made a difference because of the issue of faithfulness and accent changes that may be
satisfactory in the autotranslation done by a self-translator, a true translation done by an ordinary
translator may bring uncertain reactions from the author (1979, 197). Also, Fitch (1988) made a
distinction between ordinary translators and self-translators, claiming that an advantage of self-

23
translators lies in understanding his/her own intention and the culture of his/her original work
better than ordinary translators (Fitch 1988, 125). The other terms such as ‘original’ and ‘self-
translation’, or ‘first version’ and ‘second version’ produce diverse understandings and problems
faced by self-translators who work from smaller languages:
[...] by seeing their second text (chronologically speaking) granted the status of an
entirely new creation, a 'second original', they run the risk of the original version being
marginalized, disqualified or even effaced. (Grutman in Cordingley 2013, 75)

In the debate on what is an ‘original work’ and what is a ‘self-translation,’ Raymond

Federman in his discussion on Beckett11 says that
[a]n original creative act (whether in French or in English) always proceeds in the
dark...and in ignorance and error. Though the act of translating, and especially of self-
translating, is also a creative act, it is performed in the light (in the light of the existing
original text), it is performed in knowledge (in the knowledge of the existing text), and
therefore it is performed without error - at least at the start. In other words, the translation
of a text reassures, reasserts knowledge, the knowledge already present in the original text.
But perhaps it also corrects the initial errors of that text. As a result, the translation is no
longer... an approximation of the original, or a duplication, or a substitute, but a
continuation of the work, of the workings of the text. (emphasis in the original) (Federman
1987 in Attar 2005, 140).

Since performed in the light and knowledge self-translation is not considered just as
duplication of original, it is continuation of the work, or as another creative work. In that way,
self-translation takes away the line or borderline between “original” and “translation” and both
texts, build onto each other, and are incomplete if considered as a single version (Fitch 1988),
their overlapping content should be regarded together as complementary to each other (Hokenson
and Munson 2007), and neither of the two versions should be ignored (Kumakhova 2005, 302).
Building onto each other, completing and complementing each other, where the original and self-
translation have been in a constant dialogue, has its relevance also in the Romani context. The
original text and the self-translation are complementing each other, they are seen as caused by
necessity, and the self-translated text needs to revert to the original text, “rebounding from one
language to another” (Santoyo 2013, 30) where complementarity is bound in their intertextual
dialogues. In that way, “the risk of the original version being marginalized, disqualified or even
effaced” (Grutman in Cordingley 2013, 75) is diminished.

11
Samuel Backett wrote in two languages, English and French. Beckett has been an intriguing subject of literary
criticism for more than seven decades, and his work was ignored until the eighties.

24
 Inspired by Bakhtin’s12 theory of dialogism (1981), Hokenson and Munson make dialogic
connections within bilingual works, especially in self-translation. They make it clear that texts
are involved in a dialogue with other texts and with “those of the literary fields of their
reader’s languages” (Hokenson and Munson 2007, 198). Each version of the text includes a
different audience; therefore, there is a cultural gap between the two (Ibid.).
Investigating the area of overlap between texts Pym (1998) argues that every translator is
‘a minimal interculture’ living and working not only the hypothetical gap between languages, and
between two cultures, but in the middle of them, combining several language and cultural
competencies at once, and constructing a ‘contact zone’ of overlaps and intersections (Pym 1998,
181). In this ‘contact zone’ of overlaps and intersections we can find bilingual, bicultural,
multilingual and multicultural self-translation and self-translators where questions about identity
and translator's subjectivity appear (Robinson 2001).
Autobiographic writings are used for understanding and expressing self-translators
identity. Using the opportunity to self-translate, self-translators see their own ability in the same
way that a bilingual or multilingual writer uses different languages as a way to present their own
experiences. In that way the self-translation is a continuation of the original and can have also an
independant status in depend of the readership i.e. audience.
Since national literary traditions do not accept self-translators’ specificity, they propose a
self-translation approach that accepts “ a large definition of bilinguality” in order to recreate “the
ambient multilingual conditions of earlier periods, when writers routinely elected to write and
adopted dialects and languages, ever widening the compass of the bilingual text and its
audiences” (Hokenson and Munson 2007, 211).
When considering the intersection between self-translation text analysis, linguistics
analysis and cultural analysis with its original version we see that self-translation is not just a
reproduction of the original. It is a complex process which, besides language knowledge, also
includes knowledge of writing, use of expressions in both versions, the role of subjectivity and
12
“Dialogism is the characteristic epistemological mode of a world dominated by heteroglossia. Everything
means, is understood, as a part of a greater whole-there is a constant interaction between meanings, all of which
have the potential of conditioning others. Which will affect the other, how it will do so and in what degree is what is
actually settled at the moment of utterance. This dialogic imperative, mandated by the pre-existence of the language
world relative to any of its current inhabitants, insures that there can be no actual monologue. One may, like a
primitive tribe that knows only its own limits, be deluded into thinking there is one language, or one may, as
grammarians, certain political figures and normative framers of "literary languages" do, seek in a sophisticated
way to achieve a unitary language. In both cases the unitariness is relative to the overpowering force of
heteroglossia, and thus dialogism. (Bakhtin 1981, 426)

25
emotions raised upon writing and self-translating, reflections on self and on the other, and the
goal that a writer/self-translator has after finishing his/her work.
The questions on subjectivity, identity and self-consciousness on the literary scene turned
critical attention to the practice of self-translation, and
[i]t has been insufficiently recognized in literary criticism and even in translation studies,
where there is [...]a distinct tendency to overestimate the creative aspect of self-
translation. (Grutman and Van Bolderen 2014, 330)

As already said, in self-translation an author has his/her authorship of the work, is in

position to decide how its text should be translated, and at the same time he/she is a self-
translator who reworks and/or rewrites his/her text, owns intellectually and morally the original
text, but also at the same time creates an other original, and has the right to change the original
text. According to Santoyo in Cordingley (2013)

[o]nly the author retains the right to change, alter, deform or distort the reflected image
inaccuracies, because the 'mirror' is not something foreign to him or her: the author is, de
facto, the 'mirror' in which the original looks at itself. (Santoyo in Cordingley 2013, 28).

Self-translation, in terms of process, is “a specific type of language transfer” (Grutman

and Van Bolderen 2014, 327).
The first consideration is related to the direction of transfer of the language. Self-translator
creates a second version from his/her native language in his/her acquired language, i.e. minority
language transferred into national language/s. A very important bidirectionality of a self-
translator is created by his/her bilinguality and bicultural background. Also, the transfer of the
language can be from the national, majority to the native, i.e. minority language, and from the
native, i.e. minority language, to the national, majority language.
The second consideration is the gap of time between an original and its self-translation.
Self-translator can transfer his/her text to the second language at the same time while the writing
is still in progress in the first language. This transfer of the language is tagged as “simultaneous
self-translation” (Grutman 2009, 259). Also, a self-translator can transfer his/her text in the
second language later after the text is written or published even in other language/s. This transfer
is tagged as a delayed or consecutive self-translation.
In the case of Romani writers, direction of transfer is mostly from minority i.e. native
original language to the majority national language. In this work there is an example of the

26
transfer from national majority language to the minority Romani. In relation to the gap of time,
self-translation in my work is mostly simultaneous, but it does not mean delayed or consecutive
self-translations are not involved, in a few cases, which was confirmed by the authors in the
questionaire I asked them to answer.
The advantages of self-translation are clear when transfering one’s work into the second
language; the time needed for finding other translators is saved, i.e. not wasted; self-translators
“become their own ambassadors, agents, and even career-brokers” (Grutman and Van Bolderen
2014, 325); a rise in self-consciousness about the perception of one’s own text and certainty of
one’s own translation; native language writers enter through self-translation into a common
language where the work might be presented; self-translation can be “a tool for individual self-
promotion” (Ibid.).
Also, one of the advantages on self-translation is reflection of the authors’ own
interpretation of his/her words. It supports the idea that readers should be bilingual and/or
multilingual in order to fully understand the author’s interpretation of the original language i.e.
source text. Also, readers should be aware of the translation as an extension or continuation of
original text.
Shortcomings might appear because of the negative treatment by some writers who
consider self-translation as a waste of time and absurd; the others censure self-translation as
being political in their fight against the marginalization of minority languages, and some are
concerned that majority languages will disqualify minority languages. (Ibid.)
The advantages of self-translation in the Romani context beside these listed are:
knowledge of spoken regional languages, their awareness of the need to be self-translated in
order to be understood by own (Romani) different speaking readers and by other majority
readers, and their awareness of their positioning or rather ‘lack of positioning’ in the major
literary canon. Why do Romani poets self-translate? Romani poets/writers are bilingual and/or
multilingual and they write bilingually and/or multilingually. Referring to the findings from the
questionnaire for authors (see Annex V) the Romani authors are conscious about their own use of
language(s) and tend to think they would not be translated well by others or even by other
Romani poets, due to historical distrust. Other significant factors for translating bilingually and
multilingually include individual self-confidence in one’s own writing; differences between
dialects, customs and habits; levels of knowledge of Romani; and levels of knowledge of

27
majority language(s), which depend on individual levels of education. When writing and self-
translating their own poems, Romani poets and writers tend to save the prosodic features of the
original while exhibiting their cultural, social and political consciousness.
Self-translation in Romani context is translation of an original creative work by the
authors themselves where the original and self-translation are constantly complementing each
other in an intracultural and in an intercultural dialogue in relation to Romani readers, and at the
same time where the original and self-translation are in an intercultural dialogue as two
independent creative works in relation to the non-Romani readers.

1.6 Multilingualism

Social and cultural TS critiques on power, political agendas, and international relations
have had an important impact on reconceptualizing translation (Williams 2013, 30) and have
been increasingly focused on the connection between multilingualism and translation (Grutman
2009, Meylaerts 2006, 2010, Bhatia and Ritchie 2013), in the fields of literary translation,
community interpreting, localization, language policy etc. As stated by Meylaerts, “[a]t the heart
of multilingualism, we find translation” (2010, 227).
One integral concept to translation and literary multilingualism is heteroglossia13
(Grutman 1997) where a “variety of ‘languages’” exist, each of them placing its own perspective
on reality. Every individual speaks using some of these varieties, creating the language of work,
of song, of poetry; “each speaker/individual may be said to be heteroglot14 (‘many tongued’)”
(Quinn 2006, 196).

13
In linguistics, the term heteroglossia describes the coexistence of distinct varieties within a single linguistic code.
The term translates the Russian разноречие [raznorechie] (literally "different-speech-ness"), which was introduced
by the Russian linguist Mikhail Bakhtin in his 1934 paper Слово в романе [Slovo v romane], published in English as
"Discourse in the Novel." Bakhtin argues that the power of the novel originates in the coexistence of, and conflict
between, different types of speech: the speech of characters, the speech of narrators, and even the speech of the
author. He defines heteroglossia as "another's speech in another's language, serving to express authorial intentions
but in a refracted way." It is important to note that Bakhtin identifies the direct narrative of the author, rather than
dialogue between characters, as the primary location of this conflict. (Reference.com)
14
“[A]t any given moment of its historical existence, language is heteroglot from top to bottom: it represents the co-
existence of socio-ideological contradictions between the present and the past, between differing epochs of the past,
between different socio-ideological groups in the present, between tendencies, schools, circles and so forth, all given
a bodily form. These "languages" of heteroglossia intersect each other in a variety of ways, forming new socially
typifying "languages." (Bakhtin 1981, 291)

28
 Since the Roma arrived in Europe, at least 80 variations and dialects of the Romani
language have developed, and not all of them are mutually understandable (Bakker et al. 2000;
Matras 2002), and each has its own perspective in realities where they are spoken, so a certain
condition of heteroglossia in Romani writing can be said to exist. The writing of Romani poets
also reflects the linguistic status and individual experience of each person living in a different
society as a migrant and/or as a minority or ethnic group. Their ‘original’ text complements its
‘self-translated’ text; poems are written with the intention to be read together i.e. reading one
version in relation with another - bilingually and multilingually. As such, they “disturb the
boundaries of each cultural space” (Simon 2006, 15), but at the same time it also reduces the
number of possible readers.
In the Balkans, multilingualism is characteristic not only of many Romani speakers
specifically, it is also representative of populations in general. Because Balkan Roma live in
multilingual societies, they speak and/or write, read, translate, and/or self-translate multilingually.
Despite the many definitions already established for multilingualism, there is one in particular
that could be applied in understanding Romani writing and translation. Provided by Wei (in Wei
and Moyer 2008, 4), it states that “[a] multilingual individual is anyone who can communicate in
more than one language, be it active (through speaking and writing) or passive (through listening
and reading)[…]”. This definition is useful for conceptually framing a multilingual Romani
context.
Interactions between different languages and their role in social life as well as code-
switching behaviour can be considered the strengths of multilingualism (Edwards 1994).
However, they also open up complex questions of identity and its perception. This is especially
true when considering the roles of Romani poets and writers in society (Hancock 2006).
Transnational migration brings along major demographic changes, such that nations are more
diverse and geographically transformed territorially. It “[…] has resulted in new patterns of
migration and post-migration, termed ‘superdiversity” (Martin-Jones et al. 2012, 7) and which
refers to the meshing and the interweaving of diversities (ethnicities, differences, social locations
and the paths of various immigrant groups in the 21st century (Ibid.). The various faces of
immigration opens up questions of immigrating languages (Backus in Bhatia and Ritchie 2013,
719) a context which could be taken into consideration for Roma as historical migrants since they

29
carry Romani čhib with them (Hancock 2010; Courthiade 1991 and 1998; Matras 2002;
Djurić 2010).
Multilingualism in the Romani context is an important lens through which to understand
translation on several levels. Neologisms and loanwords always play an important role in the
bilingualism and/or multilingualism – “refer[ring] to the coexistence, contact, and interaction of
different languages” (Wei 2013)- that characterize their daily lives. In everyday situations, Roma
interact with others in different majority society languages, speaking a mixed language which, as
noted by Ritchie and Bhatia, reflects a natural aspect of bilingual behaviour (2013, 349). In this
way, they unconsciously adapt the majority language as part of their native language. The
intersection of languages leads to the use of neologisms and confers a clear element of hybridity
to the text in translation (Simon 2011, Wolf 2000, Young 1995).
„Hybridity takes on special importance in context where there is a heightened and
historically anchored consciousness of cultural and linguistic mixing. Indeed,
both translation and hybridity have become key terms in accounting for the ways
in which divided, recovered and reconstructed identities are configured within the
wider cultural forums in which they wish to participate. In this sense, both
translation and hybridity are alternatives to ideas of assimilation (loss of identity)
and multiculturalism (the multiplication of discreet and separate identities)“.
(Simon 2011, 51)

The practice of using loanwords and neologisms reflects the inequality and power that
exist between minority and majority society languages, where political influence can create a
marginalization of “certain populations” (Simon 2011, 52). This practice is noticeable with
Romani language speakers when they use loanwords and neologisms from the majority society,
signalling a very strong dominance of majority society on Romani people which, historically, are
an ethnic group or minority wherever they reside.
Like bilingual postcolonial authors who are in a space ‘between’ their native language and
a colonizer language, Romani bilingual and multilingual writers exist within a space of Romani
čhib in contact with other languages through loanwords and neologisms. “Having developed
within and across a great number of national and ethnnic boundaries, Romani literature is
linguistically hybrid”. (Toninato 2014, 71).
Besides hybridity reflected in Romani writing (non-literary as well as literary), there are
models adopted from other literary traditions. Translators and self-translators sometimes adopt
models from other literary traditions. For instance, they can choose a form for the TT that looks

30
and feels like the ST form. Holmes, in his discussion on verse translation, refers to this
translation strategy as "mimetic form", saying that although the form may prove strange and
unacceptable in the target literary tradition, its introduction could bring in new features that
eventually acquire a permanent status in the literary system ("Mimetic Form", Shuttleworth and
Cowie 2014, 64). As Pym notes, "Holmes sees these options as being appropriate to different
historical situations", with "mimetic form tend[ing] to come to the fore 'in a period when genre
concepts are weak, literary norms are being called into question, and the target culture as a whole
stands open to outside impulses' (Holmes 1970: 98)" (Pym 2010, 69). Appearances of these types
of forms emerge both in Romani writing and translation, in conjunction with the contact language
effect that characterises everyday use of the language by Romani users. These forms invite new
characteristics in the literary system, and some of them achieve a more permanent status. In my
opinion each self-translation is a mimetic form of the Romani original version and also vice versa
because of the complementarity of the versions. The feature in Romani writing of using the
grammar and orthography of the country of former Yugoslavia (or countries the Roma
poets/writers live) already gave Romani written poetry a mimetic form.

However, the differences which are caused by contact language effects interact with
translator creativity during the translation process, leading to self-created words that reflect their
diverse and subjective life experiences. They guide the different approaches taken to texts and
translation by which individual ‘norms’ are created. As Toury notes, norms “are acquired by the
individual during his/her socialisation [...]”, “serv[ing] as criteria according to which actual
instances of behaviour are evaluated” (Toury 1995, 62). In this sense, the ‘norms’ for Romani are
guided both by the contact language effect that reflects majority-minority power relations, and
the degree to which an individual Romani writer integrates the mixed language with his or her
own creativity.
Multilingualism has not always been entirely embraced by academic translation studies.
Indeed, many of the case studies involving multilingualism in relation to literary creation and
translation focus on specific literary strategies. Moreover, as noted by Cenoz and Gorter (in
Simpson 2011, 402), the concept of multilingualism has most often been divided into individual
and social dimension(s), with a focus on the number of languages involved (more than two), and
degrees of fluency (‘level of proficiency’) in the languages (Ibid.). New research on

31
multilingualism over the past few years has expanded its definition to reflect multilingual
realities in a much more comprehensive way. Other categories are being established, some of
them also useful for understanding Romani writing and translation in the context of the Balkans.
For instance, metrolingualism15 as a product of modern, urban interaction (Otsuji and Pennycook
2010, 245) describes people of different backgrounds and their linguistic diversity, their everyday
speech and how their multilingualism functions in different social spaces when walking, talking,
joking, eating, buying and selling, no matter what the language in use is (Pennycook and Otsuji
2015, 2). Metrolingualism

' describes the ways in which people of different and mixed backgrounds use, play with and
negotiate identities through language'. Rather then assuming connections between language and
culture, ethnicity, nationality or geography, metrolingualism 'seeks to explore how such relations
are produces, resisted, defied or rearranged; its focus is not on langauge systems but on
languages as emergent from context of interaction' (2010, 246) (2015, 14).

Technologies and globalization continue to underscore the multilingual nature of the

world at large. While scholars have tended to equate multilingualism and bilingualism negatively
“with detrimental effects in cognitive ability” (Cenoz and Gorter in Simpson 2011, 404) and to
“define literacy according to monolingual ideologies”, they are now having to revise their
understanding of how multilingual individuals actually function. Canagarajah (2013) espouses
the notion of ‘translingualism’ which is valorised as an urban and postmodern practice, as a
social issue, and as performative (2011), while García and Wei (2014), for example, prefer
‘translanguaging’ an approach which is a variety of multilingual practices that are not just a
combination and mixture of two languages but involves creative strategies by language users
(Wei 2014). Developing and transforming speaker skills, knowledge, experience and beliefs help
to create their new identity as multilingual speakers.
For example, a starting point of translanguaging envisions the language practices of
bilingual people as the norm, embracing a vision of ‘third space’ where questions of race, class,
and gender can be addressed (Canagarajah 2013; Garcia and Wei 2014). It is also an everyday

15
“The term metrolingualism […] was originally developed by extending the notion of metroethnicity (Maher,
2005) to refer to ‘creative linguistic conditions across space and borders of culture, history and politics, as a way to
move beyond current terms such as multilingualism and multiculturalism’ (Otsuji & Pennycook, 2010, 244).”
(Pennycook and Otsuji 2015, 14)

32
practice, where multiple languages are used in the same conversation without the functional
separation associated with the use of different languages (Sachdev, Giles and Pauwels 2013).
For Canagarajah (2013),

[…] translingual enables a consideration of communicative competence as not restricted to

predefined meanings of individual languages, but the ability to merge different language
resources in situated interactions for new meaning construction. […] [T]he term
translingual treats textual practices as hybridizing and emergent, facilitating creative
tensions between languages. The term also helps us go beyond the dichotomy mono/multi
or uni/pluri.

while for García and Wei (2014),

[b]ilingual [/multilingual] speakers select meaning-making features and freely combine

them to potentialize meaning-making, cognitive engagement, creativity and criticality.
Translanguaging refers to the act of languaging between systems that have been described
as separate[. It] is transformative and creates changes in interactive cognitive and social
structures that in turn affect our continuous languaging becoming.

Indeed, numerous terms, as reiterated by García and Wei, are currently being used to
indicate the “fluidity of language practices in the world today: crossing, transidiomatic practices,
polylingualism, metrolingualism, multivocality, codemeshing, bilanguaging […]” (Ibid.) This
fluidity that tries to express the lack or porosity of borders has implications on how we analyze
and critique ‘source’ and ‘target’ texts in translation. From a translingual perspective, and as
articulated by Canagarajah, the focus would need to fall on actual practices:

We need to focus on practices rather than forms because the translingual orientation treats
heterogeneity as the norm rather than the exception. In monolingual ideologies, meaning is
guaranteed by the uniform codes and conventions a homogeneous community shares. When
we move beyond bounded communities and consider communication at the contact zone
(whether in precolonial multilingual communities or postmodern social media spaces), we
are unable to rely on sharedness for meaning. It is practices that help people negotiate
difference and achieve shared understanding. […] Just as these negotiation strategies are
developed through socialization in contact zones and multilingual communities, we are
also finding that people are bringing certain dispositions that favor translingual
communication and literacy. These dispositions –similar to Bourdieu’s concept of habitus-
constitute assumptions of language, attitudes toward social diversity, and tacit skills of
communication and learning. Examples of such dispositions include an awareness of
language as constituting diverse norms; a willingness to negotiate with diversity in social
interactions; attitudes such as openness to difference, patience to co-construct meaning,

33
 and an acceptance of negotiated outcomes in interactions; and the ability to learn through
practice and critical self-reflection. (Canagarajah 2013)

‘Reading’, i.e. understanding, a writer’s ability to negotiate and maneuver multilingually

is critical, as “one important characteristic of the multilingual is the ability to move between
different languages”, behaving more or less like a monolingual at times, or mixing languages at
others (Wei, in Wei and Moyer 2008). They can “adopt the language of the monolingual
interlocutor(s) and deactivate their other language(s)” or “access or select words from two
languages to produce sentences when in bilingual mode” (Wei on Grosjean, in Wei and
Moyer 2008, 13). They can learn to select – through socialization and socially constructed
language and cultural practices – certain linguistic resources, and choose “to maintain and change
ethnic group boundaries and personal relationships, and construct and define ‘self’ and ‘other’
[i.e. identity] within a broader political economy and historical context (Wei, in Wei and
Moyer 2008, 13-15). Such is the context of the poets and poems I have selected for analysis.

Bhatia and Ritchie support translanguaging as “natural” to multilinguals (2004, 794). In

the case of Romani čhib, Romani people are both additive multilinguals and/or substractive
multilinguals. They adapt other languages but create sentences when “in bilingual mode”. While
writing and translating in Romani, they mostly use grammar based on majority official
language(s), because of the fact that Romani is still not institutionally standardized and accepted
by the international Romani community. Within individual societies, they create sentences
according to their socially constructed language and cultural practices. They change their ethnic
group boundaries and personal relations, and create identity within a broader political, economic
and historical context (Wei in Wei et al. 2008). Proud of their linguistic heritage, Roma will
retain their ability to write in their mother tongue, but “[t]heir literary experimentation should be
placed into the context of the multi-/poly-/hetero-/translingual reality” they “inhabit”
(Wilson 2011, 137).
Since Romani has not been standardised internationally, just regionally (see Chapter II),
various social movements are also taking over language and translation in the Romani
community. In the absence of standardisation, translanguaging as a communication practice of
Roma, would not be considered a barrier for their literary expression, but it would remain a
barrier of education in Romani.

34
CHAPTER II – THE ROMANI LANGUAGE (ROMANI ČHIB)

This chapter on the Romani language has been envisioned to contextualize the linguistic
and cultural information that will be provided in my subsequent discussions on Romani
translation within the analytical frameworks of translation studies. As such, it does not have as its
purpose to directly and comprehensively engage with the important, detailed linguistic debates
underway in Romani studies. Hence, it is necessarily selective, and therefore subjective. In order
to take this scholarship into account most thoroughly and productively for my thesis, I have
decided to present the linguistic information according to the following criteria. Firstly,
information concerning Romani čhib specificities that ultimately influence the production of
Romani literature in translation in general will be introduced through discussion points which are
relevant to all geographical regions, for example: salient features of the Romani language,
standardization, dialects, etc. Secondly, specific information concerning the Romani language in
the Balkans, particularly in the former Yugoslavia, will be introduced through scholarship in the
region, due to the fact that it currently has the most tangible impact on language and cultural
initiatives underway here. In this sense, the information presented serves to contextualize, as
underscored by Gideon Toury, the systems in which translation actually occurs and by which
definition(s) 'translation' is to be understood within this frame of reference.

[...] translations [must] be regarded as fact of the culture that would host them,
with the concomitant assumption that whatever their function and systemic status,
these are constituted within the target culture and reflect its own systemic
constellation. (Toury 2012, 18)

In line with the first criteria mentioned, my sources will reflect the historical and
comparative linguistic work carried out by various international scholars, Roma and non-Roma
alike. It is important to understand that the Romani čhib linguistic trajectory is slowly being
pieced together on the basis of comparative, historical linguistic research that is taking place in
multiple areas of study: Indian languages; Middle Eastern languages (Persian, for example);
Byzantine Anatolian and Ottoman histories; and linguistic studies in European, Russian,

35
Scandinavian, South and North American languages, to name but a few.16 These studies not only
attempt to pinpoint the time and place of the 'birth' of the Romani čhib and its subsequent
development in Europe and in diaspora. They also have a direct consequence on the ethnic, or
ethno-national, identities of Roma throughout the world. The results of the research affect socio-
political situations in terms of the ways Roma groups are perceived and the means by which they
can advocate for linguistic and cultural rights. These include, for example, their official17 or non-
official status as minority language or ethnic group with rights to education in their language and
translation.18/19
In line with the second criteria mentioned, my sources will reflect Romani scholarship in
the region of the former Yugoslavia, where important initiatives concerning standardization are
currently underway. Some of this scholarship itself relies on prior historical and comparative
linguistic work carried out by international researchers. What is important for our purposes here
is the way the research has played a significant role in determining the parameters for the
creation, translation and publication of Romani works, and for diverse educational and cultural
policies and initiatives for Roma concretely in this geographical area. Throughout the chapter, I
will refer to the Romani Macedonian researcher and professor Ljatif Demir and his self-translated
bilingual20 publication Gramatika e romane čhibaki/ Gramatika romskoga jezika (Demir and
Durmiš 2012) in 2012. The work, and its underlying concepts, has served as a textbook at the
Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb, Croatia, where from 2012 to present time have been taught
Romani language courses at the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies. In addition to

16
Various historians and linguists will be presented throughout the chapter. For further information, see Annex I –
Biographical notes.
17
At the present time, Romani is an official language in the Municipality of Šuto Orizari in Skopje, Macedonia.
18
“Romani has been recognized as a minority group and/or language in different places at different historical times.
For example, in 1925, the Soviet Union granted the Romani population national minority status and the right to be
educated in Romani. In the Americas, Colombia officially recognized Romani as an ethnic group in 1999 and
granted status of protection in 2010. Other initiatives have been implemented historically in The Republic of
Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Romania, Poland,
Hungary, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Croatia, Romania, Russia, Norway, Sweden and Finland.
Some countries have ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and included Romani as one
of their minority languages.” (Folaron 2011)
19
“Out of the 25 countries that have ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML), 15
have officially recognised Romani as a minority language traditionally present on their territory. This is the highest
number of ratifications for a single language under the Charter and it reflects, among others, the status of Romani as
a European language.” Statement adopted by the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or
Minority Languages (ECRML) on 5 November 2015 on the occasion of the International Romani Laguage Day,
http://www.roma-alliance.org/en/page/182-5th-november--international-day-of-romani-language.html, Retreived in
November 2015.
20
Romani and Croatian/ also in Macedonian

36
the theories and research presented in this book, lectures to the students have combined
information from the bilingual21 Gramatika e rromane čhibaki/Gramatika romskog jezika by
Rajko Djurić (2005) translated by the Romani poet Ali Krasnići; the bilingual22 Pravopis romkog
jezika (Djurić 2011) and Standardizacija romskog jezika (Djurić 2012) also authored by Rajko
Djurić; the English-based Kalderaš dialect23 language learning textbook Learn Romani / Das-
dúma Rromanes by Ronald Lee (2005), and dictionaries by various Romani authors24 published
in the area of the former Yugoslavia and Canada, used for its compatibility with dialect
vocabulary, common loanwords and neologisms, etc.

2.1 Romani čhib – spoken and written

After leaving India (as groups of “proto-” or “pre-” Romani people) most notably around 1000
CE25 and residing in Anatolia in the 11th through 13th centuries, the first Romani groups26 arrived
in the Balkans and spread during the 14th–15th centuries (Hancock 2002/2005/2007) in what has
sometimes been designated as “the first wave” (CE 2008a) into Europe. The departure from India
and move through Anatolia are events interwoven historically with certain calamities and the
upheavals and reorganization of societies at all levels during the times of the Ghaznavid,
Byzantine Anatolian, Seljuq/Sultanate of Rûm, and early Ottoman empires. From the time of
departure from India, the Romani language underwent influences from Greek, Armenian,
Turkish, and some Persian and Kurdish. Most recently, historical linguists and historians have
provided evidence that the multilingual, multi-ethnic character of the Byzantine Anatolian society
in which these first groups had lived helped to forge the earliest Romani identity and to

21
Romani and Serbian
22
Serbian and Romani
23
English-Romani
24
Lee 2010 and 2011; Demir and Demir 2010; Haliti 2011; Krasnići 2012; Petrovski and Kozum 2008; Tahirović-
Sijerčić 2010a and 2011/2013; Uhlik 1983
25
Earlier dates, between 5th and 7 th centuries, have traditionally been proposed. Some linguists include Dom, Rom,
and Lom peoples as all belonging to the category of Romani. They argue that the early migrations (5 th-7th c.)
traditionally cited in Romani Studies literature are Romani. However, others point out the different historical and
linguistic trajectories of these groups, and agree that the early migration dates are in reference to the Dom, but not to
the Rom who entered Europe, therefore not Romani. Differences of opinion lead some to state that Romani groups
spent different periods of time in different regions such as Persia, Armenia, Afghanistan, etc.
26
Romani people in Europe appear under different names. Among themselves they are called Rom or Roma, Sinto or
Sintura, Мanuš or Manuša, Kalo or Kale etc. The name constitutes a label for ethnicity. The meaning of some of
these names, like Rom and Manuš, is man and their plural means people. Other group and subgroup names have
derived in relation to the question of Romani origins and the problem of identity. These include, for example,
Ashkali, Egyptian, Travelers, etc.

37
consolidate a common spoken language (koiné) that had its roots in a variety of Indian dialects,27
although this evidence is still debated by Matras (Matras 2011) and Halwachs (Zatreanu and
Halwachs 2003). By the 15th century Romani groups had migrated into central, western, and
eastern Europe (the “second wave” of migration into Europe). In addition to their prior history of
dislocation, movement and displacement by war, conflict and power struggles, by the 16th
century they began to experience deportations and expulsions within Europe (CE 2008). With
time, their presence on the continent began to interest researchers, mostly philologists and
linguists who were trying to explain the Romani language and the origins of the Romani people.
It is now an established fact that many of the ancestors of Roma28 were originally from India
(Djurić 2010, 45; reference to Rüdiger 1782/1990), but also that the long and diverse historical
linguistic and cultural trajectories of Romani people have yielded different experiences as lived
out through migration. As noted by Hancock (2010a),

While our earliest linguistic, cultural and genetic components are traceable to
India, Romanies everywhere essentially constitute a population that acquired its
identity and language in the West (accepting the Christian, Greek-speaking
Byzantine Empire as linguistically and culturally Western).

Although precise details of the Romani historical timeline are still debated among
scholars, some classification and periodization schemes have proven useful as the results of their
research have progressed. Classification is often based on the evolving developments in historical
and comparative linguistics. For example, Marcel Courthiade (1991) has proposed three historical
strata, or waves of migration, based on certain similarities and differences between dialect
groups: (i) Balkan-Carpathian-Baltic; (ii) Gurbet-Čergar29 and (iii) Kelderaš-Lovari30. Hancock
(2002/2005/2007) has argued for a historical periodization in Romani: O Teljaripe (‘The Move

27
The research on Anatolia has been meticulously presented by Adrian Marsh (Marsh 2008).
28
Many of the ancestors of Roma lived in India, but there were never any actual self-denominated Roma in India till
some went there from the Middle East or Europe.
29
According to Yaron Matras (2008), the Gurbeti dialect reflects an early confluence of Balkan and Vlach dialects.
“The Southern Vlax Dialects: These dialects are spoken in Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Macedonia, southern Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Turkey. They include the dialects
of the Gurbet or Džambazi and groups known by other names such as Kalburdžu and Čergar. [Ill. 2b]”.
30
Cited in Matras (2002, 219): “An elaboration on the model of migration waves is found in Cortiade (1991; also
Courthiade 1998), who distinguishes three so-called ‘historical strata’: the Balkan-Carpathian-Baltic wave
(Miklosich’s migrations), and within it the subsequent spread, from German territory, of the Sinti dialects into
neighbouring territories; the Gurbet-Čergar (or Southern Vlax) migrations from Romania into the southern Balkans;
and the Kelderaš-Lovari (or Northern Vlax) migrations from Romania into central, eastern, and western Europe as
well as overseas.”

38
out of India’), O Aresipe (‘Arrival in Byzantium and the West’) and O Buxljaripe (‘Out into
Europe’). I will discuss the linguistic classification in more detail in the section on dialects.
Periodization markers have also been created to help explain the stages of the history of the
language in terms of research and its application, including for pedagogical objectives. In the
Balkans, for example, Demir and Durmiš (2012), basing themselves on Djurić (2005) have
proposed that the history of the Romani language be seen through three periods: the pre-scientific
period; the scientific period; and the period of reform and creativity. I will present this
periodization here.
The first, “pre-scientific” period encompasses all the known texts written on the Romani
language between the years 1500 ca. and 1782.
The facts about the oldest known text on the Romani language change in accordance with
new discoveries that emerge from investigation and research, and differ in the sources; most cite
that

[...] the oldest text was published in 1537 in “The fyrst boke of the introduction of
knowledge” by Andrew Borde. (see Annex I) [...] This text contains 15 sentences,
and it is clear that the words were noted by someone who did not know Romani;
still, nowadays, with a good knowledge of Romani, they can be understood. In
1597 the book “De Literis & Lingua Getarum sive Gothorum, item de notis
Lombardicis, quibus accesserunt specimina variarum Linguarum” was published
by the author Bonaventura Vulkanikus Brugensi. In a section titled “De Nubianis
erronibus, qous Itali Cingaros Appellant corumque Lingua”, this author notes
around 70 Romani words which, as he explained, are from Joseph Scaliger (based
on Miklošič, in Acković 2012, 13-14).31

A new reference about the oldest text on the Romani čhib is cited by Yaron Matras in The
Languages and Linguistics in Europe (2011) that is to say:

The earliest known attestation of Romani has only just recently been discovered in
a manuscript dating from around 1515 composed by Johannes ex Grafing, who
may have collected his material in Vienna (Knauer 2010). A text published by
Andre Borde in 1542 contains sample phrases in Romani thought to have been
collected in England or France. The earliest known attestation from the Balkans is
in the travel diary of Evliya Qelebi from 1668 (Friedman and Dankoff 1991).

31
“The copy of this text is located in Museum of Romani culture in Belgrade.” (my translation, Ackovič 2012);
online sources can be found here: https://archive.org/details/fyrstbokeintrod01boorgoog [Fyrst Boke...];
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k930027/f118.image.r=.langEN [De literis…]. Retrived 02.2017.

39
 The second, “scientific” period begins notably with the publication of the article

[...] “On the Indic language and Origin of the Gypsies” from the German author
Johann Christian Christoph Rüdiger (1782). During this period, new views
developed on the Romani language because of the development of comparative
Indo-European linguistics. (Demir and Durmiš 2012, 11)

It is the “first published work that postulates an Indian origin of the Romani language and
its connection to languages of the Indian subcontinent such as Hindi and Bengali.”
(Pereltsvaig 2012; see also Matras 2002). Research on the Romani language would grow
throughout this period largely thanks to contributions from the linguists and scholars who lived
and worked in the 19 th century: George Borrow; Alexandros Paspati; August Fridrich Pott, Franz
Miklošič; Heinrich von Wlislocki, and others32. During this time, it was determined that the
Romani language is related to Sanskrit (Clébert 1967, 223-234; Djurić 1987, 267; see also
Pereltsvaig 2012), in India, which would lead later scholarship to confirm that it belongs to the
Indo-Aryan sub-branch of the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family, [and is
[…] one of the [New-]Indo-Aryan33 diaspora languages34 almost exclusively spoken outside of
the Indian subcontinent (Halwachs et al. 2013).
Since it is an Indian language, it shares its earliest and most basic words with other
languages in India: the Romani word pani meaning “water” for example, is exactly the same in
Hindi, Panjabi, Nepali, Bengali, Marathi, Sindhi, Gujarati and fifty other Indian languages
(Hancock 2002/2005/2007, 9).
Meanwhile in 1888, the Gypsy Lore Society was founded in Great Britain. It had as its
object to study Gypsy cultures35, and produced a great deal of material that tended to reflect a
non-Roma folkloric perspective of Romani culture. Its most well-known publication was the
Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society.
The third period of “reform and creativity” is one that began to recognize the need to
explain and research the Romani language in a more in-depth way. In the Balkans/former

32
Borrow 1841, 1851 and 1874; Paspati 1861 and 1870; Pott 1844 and 1846; Miklosich 1872-1881 and 1874; von
Wlislocki 1994.
33
New-Indo-Aryan (NIA) languages had only two genders (unlike the Old- and Middle-Indo-Aryan), which is the
case for Romani.
34
Uhlik 1983, 12; Halwachs et al. 2013, 3; Hancock 2002/20052007, 9; Kochanowski 1989, 192
35
The organization later extended its study to travellers, as its mission statement now reflects:
http://www.gypsyloresociety.org/.

40
Yugoslavia, this third period was marked first by a Symposium on the language and culture of
the Roma in Sarajevo in 198636. For our geographical context, three events are particularly
worthy of note.
(i) First, differences in the use of letters and alphabets were recognized on the basis of
comparative studies of Romani dialects, which was acknowledged by the Commission for the
standardization of the language of the Roma in Serock, Poland in 1990, within the framework of
the Fourth World Romani Congress (Demir and Durmiš 2012, 11)
(ii) Second, after this Congress, the Commission on the Romani language composed of
Roma and non-Roma linguists took place in Skopje, Macedonia in 1992.37 One of its aims was to
agree on general principles of the Romani language on the basis of phonetics based on the
Romani language of the region (Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Montenegro, Croatia and Slovenia). These principles also addressed the transcription and
transliteration of the Romani language written in the Cyrillic alphabet (used in Macedonia,
Serbia, Bulgaria and Montenegro) into the Latin alphabet, which was used not only in these
countries but in other countries as well.38
(iii) Third, a regional conference on the process for standardisation of the language was
held in Sarajevo in 2010 and ended up in 2012.39 It addressed the dialects, and included
participants from the former Yugoslavia. Most prominent during this process were the
contributions by Rajko Djurić, who subsequently published his work in the book Standardisation

36
(Demir and Durmiš 2012, 11); Sarajevo Institute for Studying National Relationships, Romani language and
culture (Sarajevo, Institut za proučavanje nacionalnih odnosa, 1989), XVIII –XIX; “The Sarajevo Institute for
Studying National Relationships organized The International Scientific Assembly: Romani Language & Culture
from June 9th to June 11th in Sarajevo-Ilidža. [...] The Collection, for the most part, contains fifty reports and
statements written by researchers of the Romani language and culture from Yugoslavia and twelve other countries:
India, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Rumania, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Spain, Great Britain, France, German Democratic
Republic, United States of America.” I attended this Symposium, where the first radio program titled “Lačho djive,
Romalen!”[Good afternoon Roma/People!] was produced live as a gala finale of this event. At that time, in 1986, I
was the first graduate journalist of Romani origin in former Yugoslavia; I edited and moderated the bilingual radio
program in Romani and Serbocroatian.
37
Codification is intended for teaching the Romani language as a school subject in the Republic of Macedonia.
(Demir and Durmiš 2012, 22)
38
Discussions are also ongoing concerning local majority languages in post-Yugoslavia, with which Romani is in
contact.
39
Conference “Romani language, history and culture – yesterday, today, tomorrow” was held and organized by the
Romani information centre Kali Sara first time in June 2010 in Sarajevo because of a need expressed by all
participants to standardize the Romani language at the regional level in order to get the Romani langage included as a
subject in the national teaching curriculum.

41
of the Romani language during the same year.40 The standardization process and its acceptance
are not yet fully endorsed by all Romani language experts in the region due to the unequal
involvement of all participants in the region of former Yugoslavia, some of whose requests have
gone unheeded. The question of standardization of the Romani language continues to be a
divisive one, and reflects not just the problems of politics in terms of minority languages and
cultures, and their representation, but also discrepancies of Romani experts and their involvement
in the language politics.41

a. Spoken, written or conversational language – what is the ‘proper’ language?

Before embarking on a discussion about standardization of the language, it is helpful to
know a few basic facts about the Romani čhib overall. Roma people speak in various dialects42,
with many mutually intelligible aspects when spoken in conversation. The “basic issue of the
Romani čhib is the usage of diverse orthography, as well as diversity in phonological
expressions” (Demir and Durmiš 2012, 21-22). The development of any language, including
Romani, depends on socio-economical development and political changes in a country, and the
language issue is a matter of identity and power.
Linguistically, it is largely a synthetic language43. Matras, Bakker and Kyuchukov (1997,
xi) provide a brief description of the Romani language as a ‘grammatical unity’, in terms of its
unity despite diversity:

40
Djurić 2012. This work states recommentations on the proper use of the Romani written language. It has resulted,
in 2013, in the adoption of the recommendations for guidelines to teach standard Romani in the educational system
in Serbia. The Institute for the advancement of education approved the certified program Standardization of the
Romani language for school years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. (Information provided by Marija Aleksadrović in
September 2014 at the IATIS Regional Workshop in Novi Sad, Serbia, and by Ljuan Koka, a director and leader of
the Center for education of Roma and ethnic communities and a partner of the National Roma Council of Serbia,
through email correspondence on 29.09.2014.)
41
This situation is a delicate one.
42
As noted by David Crystal (2010), “one of the most difficult theoretical issues in linguistics is how to make a
satisfactory distinction between language and dialect” – the “criterion of mutual intelligibility works much of the
time; but, unfortunately matters are not always so simple”; “one common problem with this criterion is that dialects
belonging to the same language are not always mutually intelligible in their spoken form.” The distance analysis of
Courthiade and the historical sociolinguistic descriptions of Matras show there exist a large cluster of overlapping
Romani dialects which are mutually intelligible to educated speakers. But equally they show there are a minority of
dialects called Romani which do not fall within this cluster.
43
“[…] In favour of the statement that Romani is basically a ‘synthetic’ language only supplemented by analyticity,
is the elaborate and differentiated Romani morphology. […] In the ‘synthetic’ types, grammatical meanings are
formally expressed in the frame of a polymorphemic word unit together with a lexical meaning. [...] The opposing
word structure principles of cumulation and glutination are crucial for determining the typological character of a
‘synthetic’ language.” (Elšik 1997, 28-29)

42
 Romani morphology is best characterized by a delicate balance of inflective features
inherited from Older Indo-Aryan, agglutinative features which parallel some of the later
developments in Modern [New] Indo-Aryan and in Modern Indo-Iranian as a whole, and
a more recent tendency towards analytic formation characterized by structural renewal
and the grammaticalization of items of Indo-Aryan stock. These processes which involve
inherited Indo-Aryan morphology partly overlap with grammatical borrowing of
unbound, semi-bound, and in some cases bound morphemes from the European contact
languages.

The core Romani čhib has two genders (feminine, masculine), two numbers (singular,
plural), and eight cases: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, instrumental, locative,
and ablative. It has no infinitive. A number of its sounds have been imported from majority
society languages44. It is often referred to as a “contact language” (Matras 2002) due to the fact
that the ‘inherited lexicon’ would expand upon contact with other languages and manifest itself
as a multitude of dialects. While there is sometimes considerable dialectal variation, the core
vocabulary of many dialects is more or less one in common, and can be compared in many
dictionaries published around the world.45

The concept of ‘core’ is important in terms of the Romani čhib. This core vocabulary is
considered to be shared across the dialects (Hancock 2010; Matras 2002; Halwachs, Klinge and
Schrammel 2013). As noted by Hancock (2010, 57),

[although] «any originally acquired characteristics [the dialects] […] might still share,
which constitute the genetic, linguistic and cultural so-called ‘core of direct retention’ are
greatly outweighed by characteristics accreted from the non-Romani world, […]
reunification (or more accurately, unification) movement[s] seek –as I do myself- to
emphasize the original, shared features of each group rather than those acquired from
outside which separate them […].

Matras (2002, 21-25) and others also refer to the ‘core’ and ‘inherited lexicon’:

The Early Romani legacy amounts to around 1,000 lexical roots, beyond which Romani
dialects each show various layers of lexical borrowings from individual European
languages. The total number of pre-European lexical roots found in all dialects of Romani
put together is estimated at around 800, though this number is rarely found in any single
variety of the language. In addition, there are between 200 and 250 shared lexical roots of

44
The term “majority society language” is used in Romani studies literature to refer and to describe the society and
language(s) with which Romani is in contact. Romani is always considered to be a minority language, one whose
development has been intertwined with the languages (and issues) of the individual societies in which Romani
dialects are in contact with.
45
See footnote 13.

43
 Greek origin. Of the 800 shared pre-European items, we find alongside the Indo-Aryan
core around 70 Iranian and perhaps some 40 Armenian roots […]. The original Indo-
Aryan component in the Romani lexicon thus amounts to somewhere between 650 and 700
roots, though figures may differ considerably for individual dialects. […] There are
several possible interpretations of the notion of inherited lexicon in Romani. A broad view
might include shared items of Byzantine Greek etymology, and so allow ‘inherited’ to
correspond to the Early Romani period. […] By far the largest loan component in the
inherited Romani lexicon is the Greek layer. […] The second largest contingent of pre-
European loans comes from Armenian. […] [M]odern Romani linguistics has often failed
to take into account the strong Greek and Armenian presence in Anatolia in previous
centuries. Elsewhere (Matras 1996b) I have suggested that the Persian, Kurdish,
Armenian, and indeed even the earlier Greek components could in principle have been
acquired in close geographical proximity to one another, namely in eastern and central
Anatolia.”

Halwachs, et al. (2013) brings the position of Romani into a broader context:

From a structural point of view Romani may be described as a heterogenous cluster of

varieties with a homogeneous core – a common morphology and a common lexicon- but
without any generally accepted homogenizing standard. The latter is often perceived as a
shortcoming but relates to the vast majority of the languages of the world. Only 2-3% of
the approximately 6-7,000 languages have developed a generally accepted standard. First
and foremost, a standard is a means of administration which is developed by a politically,
economically and culturally dominant group to control and rule a territory inhabited by
different groups of speakers. On the one hand, a dominant group imposes a standard on
dominated groups, on the other hand, dominated groups take over the standard to
participate in political power. Roma never have dominated over territories and ruled over
others and consequently their language has not developed a standard variety: a ‘fate’
Romani shares with the majority of the languages of the world.

In its proposed standard form, the Romani language comprises between 34 and 38 sounds,
and its alphabet derives from its phonetics. In the dialects of the Romani language, there is a
slight variation in the number of sounds, and differences in the pronunciation of a single sound
can be found in some of the diverse dialects. The Romani language has its own dynamics, and is
influenced by various local, regional and national languages and dialects spoken in the particular
countries where Roma live. The grammatical structure of the Romani language can be
distinguished by observing the way dialects are used in diverse speech communities.

Despite the many differences in speech (dialects), the Romani language is one and
the same distinctive language and only at first glance it may seem that the
diversity is endless and unsystematic. These differences are mainly in phonetics
and phonology, or in various embodiments of Romani sounds in individual speech
patterns. (Demir and Durmiš 2012, 23)

44
 The importance of both the written and spoken forms of the language in relation to a
literary language for Roma cannot be underestimated. The distinction has to be made from
conversational language. Aspirations for a literary language require some effort. Romani people
tend to tread lightly on this ground for want of ease and convenience, and so the conversational
language that they have learned to speak is unconsciously most prevalent in our communities.
The difficulty is compounded due to geographical segmentation, separations among speech
communities, and to the conditions in which many are obliged to live in their communities. The
lack of education and of possibilities to learn in one's own Romani language reinforces the
problems, and many individuals do not consider it worthwhile to have a literary and standard
language.
Speakers of the language dialects use conversational Romani čhib automatically, just as
they have learned it in their communities, and they do not pay attention to the pronunciation of
certain sounds, stress, forms, or to syntactic or other grammar relationships. Instead, they
compensate for these shortcomings by mime and gestures, and by switching to another language,
the language of the majority community in general. If misunderstandings occur, the problem is
compensated for because the interlocutor is present in the conversation. With education and the
development of language and culture, one can surmise that both literary and colloquial languages
among Roma will gradually converge. In order to achieve effective communication, and for the
literary language to successfully fulfill its mission, Roma will need to uphold certain standards, at
least in certain geographical areas. This is the goal that has been set out for Romani language
education and use in the Balkans, which fits suitably within the period of reform and creativity
mentioned earlier. Despite the European Parliament and other European bodies call for practical
measures on member states for “increasing the number of Roma teachers and ensuring the protection
of the language and identity of Roma children by making education available in their own language”,
(Matras 2013, 19), despite increased number of translations, folklore collections, and scholarly
studies, the educational situation has not improved (Friedman, 2003, Matras 2013). There is no
interest by authorities to improve the situation and also no sufficient communication with the
Romani community (Halwachs et.all 2013).

45
 b. Romani čhib and its identity

When it comes to the relationship between language and identity, the

terminological phrases of language/linguistic identity should be clearly
distinguished from the identity of the language [...] The first relates to the speakers
[...] and means language in identity[...] and basically boils down to ethnic origin
incarnate in their native language, [...] while the other concerns the very
language, compared to their identity, which would be the identity in the language.
(Bugarski 2010, 20-21)

Language is one of the main factors of identity for people and their culture. When Romani
migration moved from India, through Anatolia, and onward towards Europe, other words from
other languages were adapted and incorporated into the vocabulary. Tracking these words has
helped to create a map of early Romani migration and to reconstruct the routes that were taken
while families and communities moved.
The presence of many words adopted from Persian (for example baxt ‘luck’) and some
from Kurdish (vurdon ‘wagon’) show that the migration must have passed through Iran;
Armenian and Greek words (such as kočak ‘button’ and zumi ‘soup’) show passage through what
is now Turkey; Slavic and Romanian words (dosta ‘enough’ and raxuni ‘smock’) indicate a
presence in the Balkans (Hancock 2002/2005/2007, 9).
The Romani language matrix, with its Indo-European origins, binds multiple populations
of millions of people in many areas of Europe and beyond, and this community has maintained
its identity globally despite influences from other languages such as Greek, Romanian, Slavic and
others.
Languages differ according to their area of distribution. The Romani čhib has its own
language practice in the wider geographical area, but it will only show its full literary-aesthetic
and conceptual potential once it evolves culturally. Today, the Romani language is one which
goes beyond national boundaries, and it testifies to the unusual, nomadic culture that has been
inherited from the past. However it is alive and evolves in conditions of modern civilization,
which is very characteristic of the evolution of European civilization as well. The Romani čhib
has existed for over 1,000 years and continues to exist even today, despite the fact that there are
no governmental institutions to protect, study and validate it. For it to expand, the Romani
language and its language identity will need to be protected by state and government bodies and
international institutions, as well as by support of Romani communities.

46
 c. The problem of standardization
The linguistic emancipation of the Roma worldwide has been grown rapidly but much
more advancing in the Balkans where Romani speakers mostly live. They have become aware of
the need for standardization of the language by themselves, in the context of their own lives, their
increased education, development of writing and publishing in Romani. Publishing in Romani is
mostly possible just in the frame of Romani non-governmental organizations. Romani speakers
and writers often accept the endeavour with great enthusiasm, but uncertainty because of the use
of different Romani script/s and orthography and for them preferred Romani dialect/s very often
goes into disagreement and disunity. Their disunity creates a very good space for the linguists
manipulation which as a power instrument toward Romani authors/writers gives an opportunity
to be published and largely distributed. With other words, publishing opportunity convinces
Romani authors/writers to follow powerful linguist/s scripts and orthography. In that way there
have been established many groups of followers who are gathering around different linguists who
with their disagreement bring in a doubt not just the Romani writers but also the official support
so that systematic and methodological preparation for implementation of proposed version/s of
standardization tends to be weak.
The most significant steps with regard to the standardization of the Romani language
were taken with: (i) Resolution 7/1990 of the International Romani Union, which was adopted in
Warsaw and signed by seventeen linguists from around the world46 and (ii) the Declaration of
General Principles of Codification of the Romani language, which transpired in Skopje in 1992,
and which was drafted by Šaip Jusuf, Victor A. Friedman and Donald Kenrick (Demir and
Durmiš 2012; 496-497).
There have been other movements calling for standardization at the international level, as
for example the team headed by Marcel Courthiade and Rajko Djurić while at the Fourth
International Congress of Roma in Poland (Zatreanu and Halwachs 2003, 10).47 Up to now,
however, the global Romani community at large has not been accepting of its proposals for
various reasons, including the impracticability of implementing a linguistic International

46
(Demir and Durmiš 2012, 11); The linguists-participants who signed the Resolution 7/1990 on 7.04.1990 are: ing.
Sait Balić, dr. Rajko Djurić, prof. Georgi Demeter, prof. Šaip Jusuf, Mozes Heinschink, Andrej B. Lewkowicz, pr.
Ignacy Danka, prof. Rene Gsell, Leksa Manuš, A. Joshi, Iliaz Šabani,S.K. Thakar, Marcel Courthiade, Ian Hancock,
Daroczi Agnes, prof. Tadeusz Pobožiak and prof. Lew Czerenkov. UNESCO member participant: Viktor Koptilow.
(Courthiade et al. 2009)
47
See Annex VI “Decizia Romane čhibaki” with its English translation.

47
Phonetic Alphabet-based, supra-dialectal system of orthography as the international alphabet for
Romani everywhere. There continues to be constant debate by researchers and scientists on this
subject.
The use of the Design-Romani48 by Courthiade after its recognition as the official Romani
standard in the context of the Fourth Romani World Congress in April 1990 in Warsaw
has shown its mobilising-rallying function. In the years after, the proponents of the
decision have used the conventions defining the criteria for the implementation of a
written language set by the Warsaw decision and also the neologisms in internal papers
as well as in publicly obtainable publications, such as the Rromani Uniaquoro Lil, the
newspaper of the Romani Union which is published irregularly (Zatreanu and
Halwachs 2003, 13).

At the same time, an increasing sense of ethnocentrism associated with using certain
Romani dialects has contributed to creating obstacles in the process of standardization, a fact that
is noticeable when observing various language initiatives. Generally speaking, however,
initiatives for standardization of the Romani language carried out in 1990, 1992, and in 2012,
have paid more attention to Romani language planning, especially in terms of corpus planning,
including graphitization, standardization and modernization. Corpus planning49 brings the
problem of standardization and modernization of literary Romani, as well as terminology and
translation, to the fore.
Corpus planning in the context of the Charter (CE 1998) is mainly related to translation
and terminological activities (i) supporting the role of the language in the media and the
courts and (ii) aiming at the maintenance and development of administrative, commercial-
economic, social, technical or legal terminology (cf. Art. 9 and 12). These measures
directed at the training of minority language teachers and the availability of minority
language education also imply (a concern for) corpus planning issues.”
(Darquennes 2011, 551)

48
“Increasing the prestige of the language by the adoption of lexemes from high-prestige languages applying the
integration morphology represents one of the global strategies for the expansion of Romani. Another strategy applies
the derivation and composition morphology. See two examples from the design Romani by Courthiade:
Instead of using internacionalo 'international' the word maškarthemutno is used. This lexeme consists of maškar
'between' and the adjective themutno deriving from them 'country, state' and as a consequence it is to be considered a
loan translation. In the meantime this positive example for expansion from the substance of the language starts to
assert itself on an international level – maškarthemutne. Xurdelin 'kindergarten, nursery school' which similarly has
been created from the substance of the language, on the other hand, is an unfortunate neologism. The plural xurde
used as a noun of the adjective xurdo 'tiny' is often used for 'small change, coins', sometimes for 'children'. The
derivation suffix –lin makes fruit trees from fruits, such as phabalin 'apple tree' from phaba 'apple'. The question
whether 'small change tree' or 'children tree' has asserted itself is easily answered: Xurdelin in which meaning it
might have, is only used, if at all, by real hardliners of this design-project.” (Zatreanu and Halwachs 2003, 12).
49
“Corpus planning goals, according to the policy planning approach, are a codified variety with a consistent writing
system, a grammar and a dictionary. Status planning claims an official or rather formal status which allows the use of
the codified variety in public domains, first of all in the media and in education. Functionally such initiatives target
language revival, maintenance, and/or reacquisition and ‒ with respect to corpus planning ‒ they primarily aim at
modernisation.” (Halwachs 2011, 8)

48
 Corpus planning, however, omits the problem of status planning which is mostly a
question of powerful majority politics. Majority language/s are nationally represented and
respected while minority languages and their function/s in society should be brought to an equal
level of respect. This is an especially difficult and sensitive topic currently in the Balkans, where
the post-1990s period is characterized by languages being associated with ethnicities, with new
national boundaries (countries of former Yugoslavia), religion, etc.
Majority and dominant politics of diverse countries are not the only ones responsible for
the planning of the Romani čhib; Romani linguists are as well even though they have the status of
the dominant Romani elite. Equally problematic is the struggle for domination by individual
dialects, where some claim that their dialects are the only ones deemed representative and
standard.
Another type of planning is acquisition planning50, which refers to how use of the Romani
čhib and its continuity in the family and Romani community is interrupted, and where priority is
given to focusing on dialectal differences and on the cultural (traditional and customs) differences
that separate them instead of bringing them together to increase the number of Romani čhib
users.
Actually, codification, normalization and standardization processes, all part of the usual
initiatives in language planning, are still underway (Courthiade and Reymiers 2005; Hancock
1995; Matras 2002; Karanth 2010). A literary Romani language does not yet exist due to the
problem of standardization51, and authors and writers tend not to write in a literary Romani
language any more but in a dialect of the language.
There is an important argument to be made for standardizing the Romani čhib. Most
significantly, it would help to “[...] strengthen the identity of Roma, encourage[e] their
integration and [serve as] an efficient means of protection against assimilation. [In terms of
policy-making] [t]his process could be implemented in accordance with the rights and freedoms
of Roma in Europe, particularly within the context of the European Charter on the Protection of

50
“Formal status and acquisition planning objectives, the official use of a Romani variety in education, the media,
and other public domains are subject to political conditions or rather to the attitude of the majority towards
minorities, in particular Roma.” (Halwachs 2011, 11)
51
Many literary languages accommodate dialect variation, notably English. The attempt to impose an imitation of
the Academie française on the Romani people would probably fail. It is important to note that arguments for and
against standardisation can be made, and that it is a contested issue in the Romani context. Successful literary writers
can play a role in standardising usage of the language.

49
Regional and Minority Languages, which has been ratified by many European countries”
(Djurić 2012, 39).52

[…] discussion under the heading “Standardisation and Codification” has a focus
on language planning and tries to demonstrate that Romani cannot be developed
on the basis of the experience of emancipation. Regarding the still controversial
discussion about standardisation, it has to be stressed that any initiative for the
promotion of the Romani language has to be perceived as a major contribution to
the emancipation of Roma in public life and education. Any improvement in the
status of Romani through its expansion into formal public domains of usage is
highly welcome. Such initiatives are fully in line with the Council of Europe's
strategy to support the Roma in their efforts to integrate into society on an equal
basis (Halwachs et al. 2013, 2).

The Romani language has undergone some standardization in other ways, mainly through
dictionaries that have already been published, particularly those which include an organized
section of the principles and recommendations for grammar in a clear, synoptic way. Although
this is an important step, it is vital to ensure that every individual Rom realizes, as do individuals
of other nations and languages, that use of a literary language means that certain phonetics,
scripts, words and grammatical relationships cannot be used at will, because then no effective
communication will ensue. It is also important to point out that translation plays a necessarily
active role in the creation of a formal literary Romani language.
Formal written Romani, above all, has symbolic functions with only marginal
communicative ones. The overwhelming majority of texts are translations from majority
languages into Romani. Different Romani dialect translations of Bible53, official national reports
and documents are provided with explicit purposes. Their main purpose is to highlight the ability
of Romani to function in these contexts, to satisfy requirements for translation in minority
languages, to satisfy requirements given by high level European officials to support the struggle
for socio-cultural equality of the Roma, to make visible and to symbolize the will, need or
demand for the sociopolitical integration of the Roma, etc. (Ibid.) These translations in Romani
do not have effects just on the majorities but also on the Roma. In translation is demonstrated the

52
Standardization is a problematic issue because it can be argued that standardization initiatives also have the effect
of marginalizing vernaculars.
53
“The oldest printed Bible translation in a Gypsy language is the traslation of the Gospel of Luke into Caló. This
translation was published in 1837. [T]ranslations of the Act of the Apostles into Czech Romani (1936); translations
of the Gospel John into Lettish Romani (1933), into Sinto (1930), Finnish Romani (1971) and Slovak Romani (1997)
[...]“ (Bakker and Kiuchukov 2000, 98).

50
value of Romani čhib which ‘consequently strengthens the identification with their own language
and culture’ (Zatreanu and Halwachs 2003, 13).

2.2. Romani dialects

The importance of plurality is rooted in the fact that both Romani identity and Romani as
a language of socialization are linked to local and regional varieties or dialects. (Ibid.)
The languages and nations constituting the environment in which Roma live have strongly
influenced the Romani čhib which has been transformed and has developed in relation to the
languages used by Roma during extended stays in different areas. Distinguishing a ‘language’
from a ‘dialect’ is a very difficult theoretical issue in linguistics, especially when dialects belong
to the same language and despite not being understandable to one another (Crystal 2010) as in
same cases of Romani čhib.
Significant changes are primarily reflected in the creation of new words. Such a large
number of foreign words have been incorporated into the Romani, that now it is very difficult to
determine which are of Romani and non-Romani origins. Because Romani čhib is split into a
number of dialects54, due to the time that has elapsed from when the dialects were closer in
contact with one another, the neologisms and loanwords from other languages pose an obstacle
for comprehension between various groups of Roma55, especially in certain subject domains and
in more nuanced or sophisticated styles of writing. Some linguists have proposed a special
terminology for these levels of grammar and vocabulary in Romani, whereby the earliest level (or
‘core’) can be classified as “thematic” and later accretions, grammatical transformations and
vocabulary are referred to as “athematic”.
Thematic vocabulary is common to all Romani dialects, and it is the athematic
loanwords from other languages that make one dialect different from another. As
a dialect loses more and more of its original thematic vocabulary and replaces it
with foreign adoptions, so it becomes less and less easily understood by speakers
of other dialects. (Hancock 2002/2005/2007, 150)

54
Opinions on the number vary from 60 to 80 dialects. (Folaron 2011)
55
Different obstacles emerge depending on the geographical area where Roma live, their religions, their economic
and social status, and ways of life. In the context of my region, Roma have migrated from the Balkans, and there is
the presence of the Muslim Roma population. Other researchers note that modern Internet Romani and church
Romani are showing evidence of a convergent Romani that is synonym rich (for example, Kompetri/Ordinatori)
precisely because it does not discard alternatives from different dialects, nais/perikerav [I thank]; irisaripe/atweto
[answer]; džuvdipe/trajo [life], vačaripe/duma [speech, talk]!

51
 Matras (2002) notes that these terms are inspired by Indo-Aryan linguistics. However,
they have special significance for Romani, especially in terms of reconstructing the historical
trajectory of the language, and its use in current language learning. It is also interesting to note
the metalinguistic differences that arise between different intellectual traditions in different
languages when speaking about Romani language research.
[…] ‘thematic status’ pertains to the split in the morphological treatment of pre-
European vocabulary and European loans. The morphological patterns that apply
to pre-European vocabulary and to some early European loans have been labelled
‘thematic’. The thematic grammatical formants are mainly of Indo-Aryan stock. By
contrast, subsequent loans receive so-called ‘athematic’ morphology, largely
borrowed from Greek as well as from later contact languages. This terminology
appears by now to be well-established at least in recent Anglophone works on
Romani linguistics […], while most German-language publications seem to avoid
the term, referring instead simply to morphological distinctions between
‘inherited’ and ‘borrowed’ vocabulary (Matras 2002, 73).

Rajko Djurić56, in his Standardization of the Romani language, mentions that Romani
dialects in the Balkans and former Yugoslavia [Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia] contain incomparably more identical, similar and
common elements, than those that are mutually different […] (Djurić 2012, 39). This analysis
does not differ from that of Yaron Matras in The Languages and Linguistics in Europe who states
that
Once speakers adjust to a monolingual mode of discourse57, it is generally
possible for Romani speakers east of the Great Divide (from Greece to the Baltics)
to understand one another, while the (much smaller) population of speakers to the
west of the Great Divide speak dialects that are more fragmented (Matras 2011,
268).

The close similarities between the Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Montenegrin,
and Macedonian languages themselves have helped maintain these common elements in the
Romani dialects influenced by them. The common elements are rooted in Slavic loanwords, a

56
See Annex I for further information.
57
Typical isoglosses that divide the Romani-speaking landscape pertain to the status of prothetic segments ( j-ov, v-
ov, vs. ov 'he', a-sa, vs. sa- ' to laugh' ), palatalisation and affrication ( tikno vs. cikno 'smal l ', g vs. dži 'soul ',
geljas vs. gejas 'gone' ), the distribution of a set of lexical variables, and reduction and analogical formations within
morphological paradigms. Yaron Matras, Romani, In The Languages and Linguistics of Europe, A Comprehensive
Guide, eds. Bernd Kortman and Johan van der Auwera (Göttingen: Walter de Gruyter GmbH&Co.KG.
Berlin/Boston, 2011), 268.

52
very important fact which must be taken into account when analysing translation practices and
phenomena in this region.
Dialectal classification for Romani has been portrayed through various typologies, and, as
stated in Matras (2005, 9), most “[...] ha[ve] [their] roots in Miklosich’s (1872-1880) comparative
survey and historical discussion” which “was based on a reconstruction of the migration routes of
the Romani groups that had left the southern Balkans.” Chronologically, after Franz Miklošič58,
the second most influential classification is Gilliat-Smith’s (1915) distinction between Vlax
[Vlach] and Non-Vlax dialects (Matras 2002, 219), which was used as a basis for Kochanowski’s
(1963-4) and others’ work. The distinction principally refers to the groups of dialects that
emerged historically under a greater influence from the Romanian language. More recently,
Bakker’s (1999) four-way classification has also been cited and used often: Balkan (or Southern),
Vlax (or Danubian), Northern, and Central (Ibid., 221-222). Matras59 (2002), pinpointing the
historical centre of Romani population diffusion as having taken place in the Balkans, further
divides the "Balkan" group into two sub-groups, i.e. the “default” Balkan dialect – Southern
Balkan I – and a distinct sub-group called Southern Balkan II in Boretzky’s (1999) terminology,
with the latter comprising the Drindari, Bugurdži and Kalajdži dialects (Matras 2005b); the
“Vlax” into Southern and Northern Vlax dialects; and the “Central” group into Northern and
Southern Central (Matras 2002, 6-9). Finally, Pereltsvaig (2012, 36) notes five major dialect
groups: Balkan, Baltic, Carpathian, Sinte, and Vlax.
Romani dialects are not all equally preserved.60 The Balkans represents a complex
historical linguistic situation. Matras (2002) expounds on this situation in some detail:
For the period that follows Early Romani and the decline of Greek as the principal contact
language, it is necessary to distinguish prolonged and intense impact of respective contact
languages on individual dialects from short-term impact. With the dispersion of the dialects in the
14 th to 15th centuries, migrant communities became exposed to additional contact languages and
in many cases to successive contact influences. Long-term and intense contacts emerged during
the period of settlement that followed in the 16th to 17th centuries. Typical for this period is the
formation of group-specific identities in individual Romani communities. These are often

58
See Annex I for further information.
59
See Annex I for further information.
60
Jean-Paul Clebert, who wrote Cigani (1967), has spoken of the diverse states (i.e. vibrant or dying) of different
Romani dialects, but he is not considered to be an academic source.

53
reflected through the religious affiliation, the patterns of occupations, and the identification with
a particular territory or nation, all of which may be flagged through the individual group names.

The principal languages that influenced Romani dialect groups during this period
are Turkish (on Muslim dialects of the Balkans, later also Southern Vlax),
Romanian (on early Vlax), Southern Slavic (on dialects of the Balkans, later also
Southern Vlax), German (on the Sinti group), and Western Slavic (on the Northern
Central and the Northeastern dialects), as well as other languages in individual
regions (Matras 2002, 119).

The situation is not simple. The Turkish language, for example, has had a significant
impact on a number of the Arli dialects and Vlax dialects, especially on Gurbeti (my native
Romani dialect from Bosnia and Herzegovina)61, and in particular on the part of the Gurbeti
population that has been, sporadically and indirectly but still actively, in contact with the
language, as indeed all majority languages of the countries where Roma live. The influence of
Turkish is important, and through it Persian and Arabic, primarily at the level of the lexicon, and
it is most prominently felt among Roma of the Muslim faith. Roma in Croatia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Serbia, and some in Montenegro, Kosovo and Macedonia speak a basic Vlax
dialect, with significant traces of words in Turkish, which is further influenced by the local
languages such as Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, and Montenegrin.
The group of dialects used mostly in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been termed
“Westgurbeti” by Rade Uhlik, a famous Bosnian Romologist62 who thoroughly described this
group and created an extensive dictionary on Serbocroatian-English-Romani (Uhlik 1983). In this
sense, the work on the codification of modern Westgurbeti (Tahirović-Sijerčić 2010a and
2011/2013) is a contribution to the process of codification and standardization of general Romani
(Djurić 2012), which is now largely developed on the basis of Vlax dialect speech. Still, it is less
represented in contemporary writing practice, namely due to the relative delay in the
emancipation of Roma63 in these areas. The Eastgurbeti dialect has made the transition to the
speech used by Roma in Romania and Bulgaria, as well as the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe. There has been a period of intense activity in the domains of literary production and
education. Among the books published in the dialects are the translation of the New Testament in

61
The Gurbeti dialect is usually divided into three groups: southern, eastern and western.
62
See Annex I for further information.
63
The “emancipation of Roma” is used here to refer to the advancement of Roma rights in education, culture, etc.

54
Novi Sad in Serbia, by Romani researcher and author Trifun Dimić, of Ilmihal in Sarajevo in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, by Bosnian Romani author Hedina Tahirović-Sijerčić, and the Qur’an
in Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by Romani author from Macedonia, Muharem
Serbezovski.
The demographic and geographic picture of the Roma world in this part of the Balkans
and Europe has only recently been fully updated. The speech of Balkan Roma has undergone
significant change and been exposed to large-scale migration processes, with the dialects
expanding throughout Europe and into the USA, Australia and other countries overseas.
Notwithstanding, attempts to classify Romani dialects and their speech components are not
always clear and fully explained. At least part of the problem arises from imprecision with the
term itself, with Roma themselves not entirely understanding what comprises a specific dialect.
This is the point, I believe, where translation studies can enlighten the diverse translation
processes experienced within Romani speech and writer communities. I will discuss this further
in my chapter on translation.

2.3. Neologisms and loanwords

Languages change, and some of them are threatened and even disappear, because their
communities switch to other, larger or other major world languages. Some languages spoken in
small or large areas, whether related or unrelated to each other, can take on some common traits.
One such linguistic alliance area is the Balkan federation64. There are several languages in it:
Greek, Albanian, some Serbian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Romanian and, in the opinion of some
linguists, Romani and Turkish. In my area of investigation, the dialects that are most widely
written in the Balkans are Gurbeti, Serbian Kalderash and Arli.
The fact that the Romani language differs from one speech community to another, and
from dialect to dialect, introduces another important variable for standardization and the creation
of a literary language: neologisms and loanwords. Neologisms typically refer to the invention of

64
„The Balkan Slavic language area forms the south-eastern part of the South Slavic dialect continuum. This area
consists of the Bulgarian and Macedonian languages and the south-eastern dialects of Serbian (the Torlak or Prizren-
Timok dialects). As all the Balkan Slavic dialects are part of the Balkan linguistic area, 1 the external boundaries of
the Balkan Slavic area can be defined in terms of certain structural features, which are referred to as Balkanisms. The
important Balkanisms in Balkan Slavic are the loss of the infinitive, the loss of case declension, and the use of
enclitic definite articles. In addition to the Balkan Slavic languages, the Balkan linguistic area encompasses the
Balkan Romance languages, Greek, Albanian, and the Vlax and Balkan dialects of Romani. (Asenova 2002;
Lindstedt 2000)“ (Lindstedt, Jouko (2016)

55
new words, and loanwords to lexical borrowing whereby words are adopted from one language
into another. For both, in the Romani context, the coining of new words and adoption of words
from non-Romani languages, are intertwined with the historical development of the Romani čhib
itself. Influences from the phonological systems of the languages with which Romani comes into
contact, and from the internal laws governing actual Romani speech condition and facilitate the
introduction of new words into the language. The schemas of periodization used to categorize the
main stages of Romani language development, therefore, are useful, especially when seeking to
understand how communication takes place and the degree to which different terminology has an
impact on expression in the language. As mentioned earlier, Rajko Djurić (2005, 7-8) and Demir
and Durmiš (2012, 23-25) propose using Prescientific, Scientific and Period of reform and
creativity, as historical markers for periodization. Another common frame of reference used (by
both Romaninet (2013) and the Romani linguistics and Romani Language project (Romani
Project) is: Proto-Romani (pre-European), Early Romani (Byzantine period) and Modern Romani
dialects (from the 14th-15th century onwards). According to this periodization scheme, proto-
Romani would have evolved – between the 5th and 10th centuries – into a typical New Indian
language, which had five vowels and about twenty seven consonants. Since 2004 Hancock, as
reflected in his article “On Romani origins and identity”, opposes this view, claiming that for
“Romani čhib [...] reconstructing a proto-Romani as a discrete pre-Byzantine Indian language is
not possible [...]” (2006)65.
By the end of the Early Romani phase, the phonetics would have changed and been
influenced by contact with other languages (such as Greek, Persian, Kurdish, Ossetian, Armenian
and some Caucasian languages). Particularly noticeable was the impact of the Greek language,
found at all levels of the language in all Romani dialects, including those in the outermost edges
of Europe (Spain, Wales, Scandinavia, the Baltics, etc.). Greek – the source of many words in the
Romani language – also introduced the similarity of grammatical endings and structural and
syntactic patterns, loss of the infinitive, etc. Indeed, the Romani language is often said to be “A
Balkanized Indian language” (Lee 2008, 22)66. During the Modern Romani phase, after an

65
Some linguists prefer to refer to this stage as ‘pre-Romani’ rather than ‘proto-Romani’ since the word ‘proto-‘ can
imply a larger degree of linguistic consolidation than might have been the case at the time. (Ibid.)
66
Ronald Lee states: “Romani has been described as a ‘Balkanized –Indian language’ and while there is a common
core of early Balkan borrowings from various languages that appear in the diverse recorded Romani dialects from
Wales to eastern Russia, there are also batteries of words picked up by localized groups which remained or were
forced to remain, in specific linguistic areas and now, by emigration, in the Americas. Kalderash is an example of

56
extended stay in Greek-speaking areas and previous contact with Iranian languages and the
Armenian language (probably on the eastern border of the Byzantine Empire during the 10th to
11th centuries67) there was a new mass migration of Roma towards the area where mostly Slavic
languages are spoken, as well as Romanian and Albanian. After the migration of some of these
Romani groups, they continued to travel to and settle throughout all of Europe from the mid-14 th
century. During this phase, speech patterns were formed similar to those found today, with
different phonetics in the diverse speech communities.
Regardless of the periodization markers used, all dialects have been influenced by contact
with other languages since the departure from India. Historical periodization helps contextualize
the multiple layers of linguistic variation that have survived until today in myriad forms and
dialects. Loanwords of non-Romani words in the Romani language is an important issue which is
tightly bound with migration and the language politics of majority countries where Roma live,
especially on the Balkan Peninsula. Loanwords in the various Romani speech communities of the
Balkans are of special interest to researchers for several reasons. As underscored by W.G.
Lockwood (1985, 91-99)

[...] the Balkans constitute a laboratory par excellence for Gypsy68 studies,
[...] Balkan Gypsies constitute in a number of different respects [...] the most
important Gypsy community in the world,
[...] Balkan Gypsies show a comparatively high degree of cultural heterogenity,
[...] Roma from six Balkan countries represent 60% of all Roma in the world and
they speak the Romani language.

With respect to neologisms and loan words, Hancock (2010, 113) notes that

While international languages such as English and French may be logically the
ideal source for coining neologisms, Romani speakers for the most part come into
contact with East European (especially Slavic) languages.

one of these [...].” (Lee 2011, 11) See also Kyuchukov and Villiers (2009) who write “[...] Romani is a Balkanized
New Indian Language.”
67
This schema of periodization assumes the older theories of earlier deparatures.
68
I italicize the word ‘Gypsy’ because I prefer to use the word Rom (singular musculine), Romni (singular
feminine), Roma (plural), Romani/o,e (adjective). The word ‘Gypsy’ is offensive name for a Romani person.

57
2.4. Contact languages – a mixed Romani čhib
Sociolinguistically speaking, problems arise in everyday situations where Roma
interacting with others in majority societies end up speaking a mixed language. When using their
language, they use cases and genders in a grammatically incorrect way. Communicating in
majority language/s Roma create new Romani words, loanwords, as a part of their native
language adding suffixes specific for the dialects they speak. An example of poetry written by
the first Romani poet Rasim Sejdić69 (Sejdić 2012, 408) from Bosnia and Herzegovina in Gurbeti
dialect illustrates this point well.

Gazisarde70 romengi violina Treaded on Romani violin

Rasim Sejdić
My translation
Gazisarde romengi violina Treaded on Romani violin
ačile (sic) ognjišta romane remained Romani hearth
e jag o dimo a fire a smoke
ando oblako vazdinjalo. in the sky raised.

Idžarde e Romen They took Roma

čavoren (sic) restavisarde pe datar children taken away from mothers
e romnjen pe romendar women from men
idžarde e Romen. they took Roma.

Jasenovco perdo Roma Jasenovac full of Roma

pangle (sic) pala betonske stubujra imprisoned behind the cement pillars
pale latsujra pe prne pe va with chains on legs and hands
ande blato džike čang. in mud knee-high.

Ačile (sic) ando Jasenovco They remained in Jasenovac

lenge kokala their bones
te prinčin, o nemanušengim djelima to tell, about unhuman works

69
See Annex I for further information.
70
All words in italics and underlined are Slavic words or derivates from Slavic in the Romani language.

58
zora vedro osvanisarda dawn clearly woke up
i Romen o kam (sic) pre tatarda. The sun the Roma warmed up.

In this poem it is remarkable that the poet uses 57 words in his poem in Romani but out of
these 57 there are 17 loanwords from the Bosnian language. The meaning of words used in
Bosnian and the meanings of words coined from Bosnian language into Romani such as ‘zora
vedro osvanisarda’ are used properly. My observation is that the poet might not know these
words in Romani, and so he uses the words in Bosnian. These words have the same meaning in
the Serbian, Croatian and Montenegrin languages, ‘zora vedro osvani(sarda)’. For the verb ‘je
osvanula’ he added the Romani suffix ‘sarda’, and coined the Romani word ‘osvanisarda’
creating past tense.
I hypothesize that in order for other Roma, for ex. from the U.K., the Netherlands,
Belgium, France, Italy, the Americas etc., to understand the poems written in Romani by Roma
writers from the Western Balkans, translation is needed. It is necessary that a translator be a
speaker and reader of Slavic languages and that his or her knowledge of both cultures be at a high
level. Roma from other areas (such as those mentioned above) and Roma who are linguistically
alert to the use of Romani words, would write the line ‘zora vedro osvanisarda’ as ‘šukar teharin
vazdindja’ or in another way, depending on their dialect (see 2.1.1 Romani Dialects; see also
Halwachs et al. 2013).

The more usual type of contact historically […] involves direct social contact
between speakers, since languages and their speakers do not exist in isolation but
rather in social settings. […] Speakers of languages are continually coming into
contact with speakers of other languages, creating a variety of contact situations,
each with a potentially different result. Such contact may be caused by trade,
conquest, migration, or other factors. Contact situations can be described in terms
of their influence on the linguistic systems, the social relationships of the speakers
in contact, and the linguistic outcome of the contact. […] [T]he linguistic systems
involved are often influenced by borrowing, […which] can be lexical […] or
structural. (Mihalicek & Wilson 2011, 486)

59
 The ‘contact language effect’ in literary writing is very important to mention in Romani
creative work, especially given the fact that Romani language literacy among Roma and literary
writing in Romani are relatively recent phenomena. Romani language dialects already contain an
important stratum of lexical and syntactic elements borrowed from other languages with which
they are closest in contact (Matras 1995; 2002). And as noted by Liegeois,

[…] at different stages and different times the Romani language has spread and
continues to branch out into a multitude of local varieties. These variants are
different more by their degree of forgetfulness by one who speaks the language,
but not for its intrinsic differences. (2009, 46-47)

The hybridization of the Romani language could be attributed to the unequal relations of
power it has had with respect to different majority societies as Roma have moved along
migration routes. Romani language hybridity, as manifest in the incorporation of loanwords and
neologisms and their changes, reflects forces that are non-linguistic. As observed by Sherry
Simon: “[...] a defense of the hybrid does not ignore the political forces that continue to
marginalize and exclude certain populations” (Simon 2011, 52). In other words, the continued
practice of Romani language speakers to use loanwords and neologisms also reflects the power
imbalance that exists between Romani and majority societies. Neologisms and loanwords coined
from the Slavic languages influence Romani čhib internationally, to such an extent that new
generations that were born in migration and in diaspora no longer know if the word is of Romani
origin or not.

2.5 Romani language in a literary context

Language, literature and translation are all central to the survival of the Romani language, and
critical for expressing Romani identity in our increasingly globalized world.
The history of Romani linguistics and literature has been written thus far on the basis of
compilations of literary and non-literary materials, research and doctoral dissertations mostly by
non-Roma71 who have accompanied Roma people, studied the Romani čhib, and written down

71
Two of the earliest most important works in the area of Romani language studies are Die Zigeuner in Europa und
Asien [Gypsies in Europe and Asia] (Pott 1844-1845) and Ueber die Mundarten und die Wanderung der Zigeuner
Europa's [About the arts of oral expression and migrations of European Gypsies] (Miklošič 1872-1880). Since then
many other linguistic works have been written as referred to in my section on language.

60
information about Romani traditions, customs and culture. In the context of Roma, researchers
and social scientists have been overwhelmingly non-Roma because Roma did not have their own
researchers until the year 1969 when two Roma scholars graduated in linguistic studies: one of
them was Vanja de Gila Jan Kochanowski from France, and the other was Ian Hancock from
Great Britain. Some of their publications were published during that time in the then most famous
journal of “The Gypsy Lore Society” in Great Britain. Tihomir Đorđević72, the first Serbian
Romologist, also wrote for this journal, as well as the linguist and Romologist from Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Rade Uhlik.

a. Romani literary production written by Roma in Romani čhib and non-Romani

language/s – a dilemma of categories

In my opinion Romani literary production i.e. Romani Literature has two categories:
Literature about Roma (predominantly written by non-Roma), and Literature by Roma
written in Romani or in a non-Romani language.
Use of the Romani language is fundamental for the creation of a history of Romani literary
works, and serves as a way by which to orient the documenting of Romani literary creativity. 73
The literature of Romani people first became a historical fact only in the 20th century
(Djurić 2010, 6), back in the year 1950, when the first handwritten Romani pieces were published
in the Serbian language. Until then, Romani expression was primarily oral, and related to Roma
folklore. Slobodan Berberski (1919 –1989) published the first book of poems titled Za kišom biće
duga (After the rain the rainbow shall come) in 1950, and two years after that came the book of
poems called Proleće i oči (The spring and the eyes). Even though Berberski did speak the
Romani čhib as his mother tongue, he wrote in the Serbian language, the language of the majority
society. After World War II, when political conditions allowed for the affirmation of national
minorities, it was possible to create and publish individual works that aligned more suitably with
the former communist states and the state ideology of better presenting inter-ethnic and social
relations in the multicultural socialist society of that time.

72
See Annex I for further information.
73
Launch of the first Romani publication – newspaper in the Balkans in 1935 in Belgrad was called Romano Lil –
Romani newspaper. The newspaper was published twice in bilingual format. In this newspaper, the first journalistic
texts in Romani language in the Balkans were published. The owner and publisher Svetozar Simić was a law student
at the time.

61
 There are other challenges to face when considering the specific circumstances associated
with the emergence of a written, printed Romani literary tradition, i.e. the roots of a literate
literary tradition where upon a genuine literary translation tradition can be based. The popular
genre of poetry, for instance, was essentially oral. The first collection of poems in Romani
language in this area, under the name “Rom rodel than talav kham [Roma man seeks his place
under the Sun]”, was published by Rajko Djurić back in the year 1969 in Belgrade. This book is
about 40 pages long and contains 34 poems printed in cyrillic letters, published by the “Servis za
grafičke delatnosti Saveza KUD Beograda” (Acković 2003, 15).
Poems have been published in newspapers, magazines, journals and anthologies, and as
sample excerpts of literature in Romani language textbooks as well. While the vast majority of
Romani writers tend to focus on poetry, all other genres have likewise been used, including
drama, theatre, short stories, and novels. Although the literary production is not as concentrated
and apparently prolific when compared to other ethnolinguistic groups74, Roma writers and
authors worldwide write in all genres, in multiple languages and dialects, both with and without
translation into and from other local, regional and world languages.75
In the context of the former Yugoslavia countries, Serbia stands out in production with the
following Romani authors7677: Rajko Djurić, Alija Krasnići (b. Kosovo), Mehmed-Meho Saćip*
(b. Kosovo), Jovan Nikolić, Trifun Dimić, Bajram Haliti (b. Kosovo), Slobodan Berberski and
others. In Macedonia there are such authors as Šaip Jusuf, Muharem Serbezovski, Ljatif Demir,

74
“The main raison why the written works by Romani authors have been generally `invisible' and unknown to the
[non-Roma] is simply that nobody expected them to be there at all. The use of writing for literary purposes, in fact, is
not in accordance with the popular image of the `Gypsies' as wild, primitive and therefore uneducated.”
(Toninato 2004, 161-162)
75
I concentrate here on the Romani writers in the Balkans, but others are known in other languages and countries
outside of former Yugoslavia. In France, for example, Matéo Maximoff (1917-1999) wrote a number of novels in
French and his books have been translated into fourteen languages; The Ursitory (1946), The Price of Freedom
(1955), Savina (1957), Vinguerka (1987), Angels of Destiny (1999), etc. Maximoff was an Evangelical pastor of
Romani origin.
76
“[R]ise of a Romani intelligentsia, whose members are particularly active in promoting the diffusion of a common
language, romanes, and the fostering of Romani identity. These intellectuals no longer perceive writing as a sort of
‘menace’ towards their own cultural heritage or as a means of communication for the exclusiveuse of the [non-
Roma]. They seem to insist particularly on the constructive side of writing, instead of dwelling on its external use for
assimilation purposes. It is as if, after being for centuries the silent target of innumerable representations, the frozen
image of the ‘Gypsy’ was finally given voice in order to uncover the inconsistencies of literary cliches and to
challenge misleading representations of Romani identity.” (Toninato 2004, 142)
77
See Annex I for further information. The names indicated with an asterisk (*) denote the authors who are analysed
in Chapter 4, where detailed information about them is included. In my work I mention just those who are the most
well-known in the Balkans.

62
Akile Eminova and Neđo Osman*. Among the poets in Bosnia and Herzegovina there are Rasim
Sejdić*, Šemso Avdić, Hedina Tahirović Sijerčić* and Marko Aladin Sejdić. In Montenegro
there is Ruždija Russo Sejdović*; in Kosovo, there is Kujtim Paćaku; and in Slovenia, Jožek
Horvat Muc. All of these authors write in their own Romani dialects and self-translate their work
into the majority languages of the countries where they lived the longest or live in, according to
the quality and scope of their education. All of them are multilingual and they mostly translate
their work multilingually. It is very often difficult to define and recognize what their source and
target languages actually are. In order to create and define adequately the category of Romani
literature it is necessary to keep in mind the challenges and special characteristics of the Romani
language and literary expression.

b. Romani literary production – and the inclusion of Romani women writers

Academics have published what they learned and knew about Roma, and this information
has contributed to the body of knowledge (at times erroneous) on Roma in general. However,
what is often less known is the fact that actual traditions and language have often been kept alive
within communities by Romani women. Their contribution is still too often neglected in the
literature. They have been the bearers of tradition despite the patriarchal foundation and support
for the patriarchal ways of life. Traditionally, the role of women is to transfer the cultural heritage
(the father's legacy) and to serve as the symbolic center of the family and community, in one
word take on the personification of continuity and stability (Moranjak Bamburić 2006, 13). From
this perspective, Romani women are in many ways no exception from other women elsewhere.
Specifically, in terms of the preservation of Romani culture, Roma women are known
historically to have created and left symbols (signs) while travelling78; they also sang and told
stories, and transferred and maintained ancient Romani songs and stories that recount “[…]
myths and legends, fairy tales and folk tales and poetry of Roma, [all of which] constitute the
main content of Romani folk literature. (my translation, Djurić 2010, 25)” Through these actions,
they have helped preserve Romani culture, tradition and customs, the Romani language and

78
Romani people used symbols purposefully in order to protect and inform themselves and other Romani groups
about the good and bad of certain societies they encountered, making economic goods for survival. To create their
signs and symbols Roma used leaves, feathers, certain types of wood, metal, furniture, fabric, glass, leather etc. and
in these symbols it was clearly seen that the particular material with which to create the symbol did not matter;
rather, what was important was what was symbolized. As Clébert (1967, 233-234) states, these signs are generally
very simple hieroglyphics, but they are kept confidential within the tribes.

63
Romani identity. By extension, they continue to play a vital role in the 20th and 21st centuries as
writers.
Traditionally, Roma women also respect Romanipe79 and the Romani kris80, which refers
in Romani to the traditional Romani court; they are aware and tacitly agree with the “patriarchal
naturalization of female gender roles” (Moranjak Bamburić 2006). In so doing, they have kept
quiet, kept to themselves, and suffered the limitations of behavior codes, which have been always
upheld (and enforced) by men within the hierarchy of the family81. Even while acting as
guardians of the folk treasure, Romani women have been characteristically silent, obscured by
tradition and the patriarchal establishment. As such, they have been complicit in allowing
Romani men to dominate (and thereby genderize) the historical framework of Romani folk
creativity.
The cases of Gina Ranjičić and the self-taught poet Bronislawa Wajs Papusza are
enlightening and illustrative. They broke the mold of oral culture through writing poetry and
singing in Poland. Other Roma women such as Katarina Taikon in Sweden, Ceija Stojka in
Austria, and Philomena Franz in Germany, are equally important. Through their written songs
and stories, they could be considered as the mothers of Roma literary expression in the countries
where they lived and wrote. In the case of these Romani women authors, each one of them fought
for her literacy. Through their works they have dealt with Romani life and the suffering
associated with it. Through their gender, they highlight the specific problems faced by Romani
women in the areas of tradition, culture, customs and language.
The preservation of Romani cultural legacy in modern times by Roma women is,
interestingly enough, somewhat accounted for by the act of translation, where the original is
ensured – as Walter Benjamin would say – by its ‘afterlife’,

79
Rromanipe(n) /Romanipe(n) is the common denominator of all that is considered or believed to make up the
essential characteristics of all Romani people around the world. The term is derived from the name of Roma/Rroma.
It refers to the feeling of belonging to the same people, to the same history, culture, and habits despite the differences
that are specific to sub-groups. (Hedina Tahirović-Sijerčić, 2017, „Romani Identity“. In A Romani Women's
Anthology: Spectrum of the Blue Water, Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina and Cynthia Levine-Rasky eds., Inanna
Publications and Education Inc.: Toronto, Canada, 2017, 18.)
80
The laws created by the “respectable” members of the group, the men, are accepted and governed by the Romani
kris. Men’s powers determine the level of integration of the group, and its hierarchy and solidarity with other Roma
and non-Roma. The institution of the kris enhances men’s status and provides opportunities for jobs and other
activities within Romani and non-Romani society. (Hedina Tahirović-Sijerčić, 2017, 25)
81
The Romani court, or Romani kris in the Romani language, and traditional laws are what condemned Papusza, the
Romani poetess from Poland, to lifelong death because of her secret agreement with a gadjo man.

64
 For a translation comes later than the original, and since the important works of
world literature never find their chosen translators at the time of their origin, their
translation marks their stag of continues life. The idea of life and afterlife in works
of art should be regarded with an entirely unmetaphorical objectivity. [...] The
concept of life is given its due only if everything that has a history of its own, and
is not merely the setting for history, is credited with life. (Benjamin 2000)

Romani author Gina Ranjičić, who wrote songs in her Romani mother tongue was
published half a century later in Swedish translation by the Romani author Katarina Taikon. Her
poetry has also appeared in German, and more recently in translation by Moma Dimić
(Taikon 2006) in Serbia, the country where Gina Ranjičić was born. The contradictions between
tradition and cultural discourse, on the one hand, and actual reality, on the other hand, have
triggered many questions, among them questions regarding gender identity in the Romani
community and in Romani literary expression as well as the nature of women's writing overall.
They question how women in general write and who their real literary ancestors are. Can Gina
Ranjičić, Bronislawa Wajs Papusza, Ceija Stojka, Katarina Taikon be considered as the literary
ancestors of literature by Roma or as the literary founders of Romani women’s literature?
(Tahirović-Sijerčić 2016)
One answer to this question has been given by the Roma writer and romologist Rajko
Djurić, who speaks of the life stories and trajectories of Roma poets as being “marked with poetic
symbols” (Djurić 2010, 88). He notes: “These poetic symbols are appropriated, perhaps, for the
life of Gina Ranjičić (1830–1891), a Romani woman, who could be considered as a pioneer of
poetry and lyrics of Roma in Serbia” (Ibid., 88). Djurić also says: “The literature of Roma in
Poland bears the stamp of life and creativity of Bronislawa Wajs Papusza (1908 ? - 1987)” (Ibid.,
126). In reference to the literature of Roma in Sweden and Finland, he points out that: “The
literature of Roma in Sweden is most frequently related to the name Katarina Taikon (1932 -
1995), whose autobiographical novel Katica celebrated her and the literature of Roma.” (Ibid.,
140) In the former Yugoslavia the literary Romani “mother” is often associated with the poet
Gina Ranjičić, who recorded Romani folk poetry in her native Romani Kalderash dialect during
the mid-19th century. The role of Romani women and their writing to preserve the Romani
language, tradition, culture, history and identity is very important, but further research and
investigation could bring them into the realm of historical fact, and serve to contest that Romani
literature has its roots at least as deeply entrenched in the literary vanguard of the “mothers” as it

65
has in the literary vanguard of the “fathers”. The traditions, customs, habits and folk poetry can
be found in the modern poetry written by some Romani women authors who are part of the
current generation writing in contemporary times.

c. Romani literary production – its origins in orality

In addition to the published books which have collected and recorded transcribed folk or
artistic prose and poetry, there are books about Roma that are more ethnographic and
historiographical in nature. Some of them are unknown to many, but they exist.

[…] the first book about Roma in the Serbian language was printed in 1803.
Anyway, this year, says Bozidar Kovaček, were printed sixteen books in Serbian
and among them "Stemografija, sireč opisanije načalnogo proishoždeenija
Ciganov madjarski s nekimi pripovedkami" composed by Peter Asi-Markovic
(Baja, 1770 Buda, 1844), a nobleman, a lawyer, a senior government official, a
very respected member of the Serbian parishes in Budim. (my translation,
Aleksandrović 2012)

There are no detailed research studies and comparative analyses of language, culture,
customs, religion or national identities of Roma people worldwide. This would be essential for
putting forth comprehensive and dignified scientific claims, but has not been done, allowing for
the mass generalizations to continue. However, many stories called purane paramiče82 have been
written and transcribed, edited, translated and published (Tahirović-Sijerčić 2009). The multi-
dialectal purane paramiče that have been recorded and the absence of a standard literary
language likewise illustrate well the problem of classifying writers within a category of “Romani
literature”.

[...] There was a very attractive way to learn, to educate, and this all consisted of
singing romance and telling stories. Stories that are known to me, or rather, ones
that circulated in our families, do not have anything specifically Jewish, or
Sephardic. Most of the story is of Arab origin, customized for the Jew. (Papo 2005,
169)

82
“The myth originated from the ancient Greek language (mythos) and refers to the story of the life of the Gods and
supernatural divine beings who descend to Earth, live and work as men, often mingle with them and together
perform a variety of strange, unexplained or heroic feats. The Romani term for this kind of story, i.e. myth, is
"purane paramiča"or old stories.” (Djurić 2010, 25)

66
 Romani people have their own original motifs which have been preserved up to the
present day. They include the legend of Prince Peng, of Beng (devil), the Pharaoh's kingdom, of
God (Devel or Del), and stories whose heroes are various little monkeys, ghosts, tramps and
many other negative characters. Humour in Roma stories is expressed predominantly as three
main types, namely dilo (dumb), xalo (bold) and phuri (old). The themes found in Romani
literature, especially in stories, are varied. They are about tradition, beliefs, love, family,
traditional crafts, habits, about nomadism, special historical events, the Romani holocaust, about
their awareness of the gap between the Roma and non-Roma. In this literature, stories can be
found which may prove to be confusing or surprising to non-Romani readers. Stories that are
spoken among Roma are “normal talking stories” for Roma, but can sometimes seem disgusting
for non-Roma. The stories are often so long that the narrator forgets to tell their end. These
stories vary from narrator to narrator. Everyone adds something of his or her own and invents,
and when the stories are horrific, the narrators telling them are so credible that they themselves
can be frightened. Some of the more frightening characters are those known as the bahvalja –
spirits named Karankoči-Koči, čoxane-witches, javišta, and other scary spirits.
In the context of Romani folktales, myths and legends, the romologist Rade Uhlik (1984,
1-10) states:

All the Roma are not equally nice and smooth when narrating a story, just as not
all Jews are great traders. They love to «run the story” and to speak them slowly,
untie them gingerly, because, according to oriental custom, they are never in a
hurry. Moreover, stories in translation can seem dull and dry and lose their shine.
From them immediately emerges the spirit of the Romani language, the language
of the former Indian jungle.

The dryness or dullness referred to here by Uhlik can be puzzling for non-Roma.
Reflecting on this lack of luster, it bears repeating that Roma only use the storytelling language in
a certain way within their Romani communities, thus conferring on their stories an immediate
spirit of the Romani čhib, readily understood within the context of their culture, traditions, and
customs. Roma will only use the language in a straightforward way in their stories and maintain
the Romani čhib spirit for clarity of culture, tradition, and customs when they are among
themselves. Moreover, the language, and the various synonyms and homonyms used, can be
considered as vulgar expression when translated into another non-Romani language.

67
 Based on my personal experience, the spoken Romani čhib is a ‘tool’ like other
languages, and one that brings Romani people around the world together and gives them the
ability to communicate and understand each other if there is good will and a desire to do so,
despite the dialects and barring any serious problem. The identity of Roma men and women, or of
Roma people in general, characterized by the value of the Romani čhib regardless of the dialect
that was used for creating Roma literature, is an area where there are numerous latent battles
being waged, especially “between the dominant discourse of power and the more subversive
aspirations of marginalized social groups” (Zdenko Lešić et al. 2006, 514).
Folk songs and traditional stories have been transferred into the public sphere and among
non-Roma researchers by Roma men, sometimes belonging to one and the same group. Often
they were those who were entitled to the right of speech outside the Romani community, i.e.
those more dominant and powerful. One example identified is the case of Redžo Osmanović from
Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina), a Romani poet and prose teller who was mentioned by the
romologist Rade Uhlik, who had in the time frame of nearly half a century, recorded hundreds of
Romani poems and stories.
“In the materials I've collected from various Roma people, there are
approximately eight hundred poems sung by an old folk poet named Redžo
Osmanović from Prijedor. Anyhow, Uhlik added, “the number of talented
storytellers among Roma people is quite large, and among them there are some
special people such as: Redžo Osmanović, Bajro Hamidović, Halil Salkanović,
Ibrahim Ganija, Halil Bejtula, and others. Romani treasure of poems, fables and
stories is vast. They are said to be the masters of storytelling and that they really
can do ‘paramičendje paramiča’, or storytelling. Redžo Osmanović for example,
speaks in such a pictoresque and vivid way, that one could conclude that he'd
watched a movie, rather than listened to Redžo's stories” (Uhlik,1984)

But many have not been accorded any recognition whatsoever, and it is necessary to
question why some excellent and well-known storytellers and poets have been excluded from the
public sphere, from the canon of their national literature, and from the canon of European
literature (Toninato 2014, 114). Why have certain researchers not been made aware of them, or
have they turned a blind eye? Why have they searched exclusively for stereotypical and visibly
nomad Roma from certain nomadic groups? Why have they not asked other, more assimilated
Romani groups or individual story-tellers to transmit their stories, and why have they not been of
interest to them? Further complicating the situation is the lack of consensus by historical linguists

68
as to which groups comprise the category of Roma, and the degree of infiltration of a majority
society's language into the local Romani culture (in Spain, for example).
More recently the old stories/ purane paramiča have been narrated, beginning in the early
20 th century, by Romani women and men writers wishing to retain symbolically what was
brought away from India in the form of myths83 and legends84. They narrate accounts on the
origin of human beings and of Roma, about the earth, world, fire, musicians, bearkeepers, family
tales and stories, spells, riddles and proverbs. The inclusion of Romani traditional and oral poetry
in their work, and the topics of God (Devel), love, sadness, the devil (beng), death, nature and
“life in prison”85 are frequent. Equally important are songs, whereby Roma have expressed their
prayers and hopes, passion and love, joy and sorrow, thoughts of life and death. Oral culture is
inherent to Romani expression, and goes hand-in-hand with memory86 and oblivion87, and
consequently remembrance. Romani traditional songs have been integrated into modern Romani
songs, which have become part of various musical traditions, from which they also subsequently
derive. They have been and remain an instrument for the promotion of Romani culture. But
without knowing Romani culture and Romanipe it is neither possible to neither comprehend the
Romani tradition nor understand their work, and the culture, it bears repeating, has been
significantly affected by migration and violent changes. However, despite this fact, the spirit of

83
“Once upon a time, God decided to create a man. He knew that since He had already made the sun and the moon,
He would now be able to make a man too. God took some mud and made a clay statue of a man. When He was
satisfied, He placed it in the oven to bake it. He thought that baking the statue would take a few hours, and when He
became bored with waiting, He went for a walk to pass the time. Since the weather was beautiful, God forgot about
the statue. By the time He remembered, He came back to find that the statue had baked to a black colour. Though the
statue had baked longer than intended, God breathed life into it, and this first man became the ancestor of dark
skinned people. Then God decided to create another man. He placed the finished statue in the oven to bake. This
time, God stayed near the oven because He did not want to bake the clay statue too long. In His impatience, God
removed this statue too soon, and it had baked to a white colour. Though the statue had baked less than intended,
God breathed life into it, and this second man became the ancestor of light skinned people. God tried for a third time,
and formed a man out of clay. He placed the finished statue in the oven. This time He was very careful. He did not go
for a walk and stayed close to the oven, but He was patient and careful not to remove the statue too early either.
God’s patience paid off, for when He removed the clay figure from the oven, He saw a beautiful brown man. He was
well pleased, and He breathed life into the statue, this time adding with his breath all his life experience and
emotions. God then decided that this man would become the ancestor of the Roma.” (Tahirović-Siječić 2009, 17-19)
84
“Romano princo Penga/Romani princ Penga” in Tahirović-Siječić 2009a
85
“Life in a prison” because of the constant persecution and contempt for Roma. Roma have lived for centuries in
almost near death. They left their traces in prisons and cafes, wherever the accident and evil hiding [was], following
the fate of a black man and people who were seeking deliverance and salvation. (Djurić and Kajtazi 2011, 48)
86
The word “remembrance” in the Romani language implies a “human consciousness of themselves in the real
world”. (Đurić and Miletić 2008, 162)
87
The word “oblivion” has etymological origins in the Old Indian words that mean “re-death”. The Romani proverb
“Bistardo e manušestar thaj e Devlestar!” – “Forgotten both by man and by God!” – means it is the most horrible fate
that a person can experience. (Djurić and Miletić 2008, 162-163)

69
cultural values borne from distant India is recognizable to this day; language, orality, beliefs,
matriarchal form of respect to female deity such as the cult of Sara la Kali and fertility feast
(Acković 2012b, 7).
“If for the Roma their language is their homeland, then Romani poetry is the capital of the
Roma” (Djurić 2010, 163).
Through poetry and song, Roma tried to hide their feelings, and to express the sadness
and joy of those who were scorned and forced to perpetual exile. The songs were composed using
the sounds associated with “Gypsy” music88. When certain songs have been accepted by non-
Roma, they are sometimes translated and released in other languages.89 Songs and poetry have
always accompanied Roma. They were sung beside the cradle, next to the fire, at celebrations, at
weddings, and at the cemetery. They express the spirit of the Roma people, as underscored by
this Romani proverb: “Rrom bi giljako si sar kham bi strafinako.” [Rom without song is like sun
without shining.] (my translation, Djurić 2010, 38).
The folk literature preferred, appreciated and loved by Romani communities are most
represented by fairy tales, myths, legends and short stories. Roma folk tales demonstrate
abundant verbal creativity that has been passed on from the people and tribes of the Middle and
Far East, and they are often imbued with magic, myth and legend (Vukanović 1983, 336).
In Romani folklore there are definite constants such as particular genres, certain themes
and motifs, favourite types of heroes, characters, etc. Traditionally among Roma there were
professional narrators of folk stories called paramičaro/i90, and they narrated in their Romani
neighborhoods. With their storytelling activities prevalent mainly during the wintertime, they sat
in certain houses where people would come, gather and listen around the fire. Some of these
stories were apocryphal and imaginary, called hatam and hatam beči. There were also stories that
told of God, divine beings and their lives, known as Develikane paramiča.91 According to Rade
Uhlik and Branko Radičević (1982), Romani oral and folk poetry is poetry that speaks of prison
and travel, kidnapping and horse theft, the grieving of old boilermakers and tinsmiths, and
88
The power of Romani songs has contributed to Roma stereotyping as well.
89
The popular song Djelem, djelem / I went, I went, is an example. The content of this song has been modified and
resulted in the internationally recognizable anthem of Romani people adopted in London in 1971 during the First
International Congress of the Roma.
90
In the Romani language, ‘narrator’ is translated as paramičaro (a man narrator) and paramičari (a woman
narrator).
91
“‘Hata’, ‘hatam’ is a Romani word for the stories that fit the concepts of fairy tales. This term comes from the Old
Indian word ‘katha’, ‘kathanaka’ for fairy tale. ‘Devlikane paramiča’ are stories that tell of God, divine beings and
their lives. ‘Devel’ in Romani means ‘God’. (Djurić 2010, 25, 36)

70
confusion in the eyes of the world. It includes frankly foul-mouthed, childish talks of women
offended and embarrassed, talk of freedom, and the tragedy of a nation whose roads to a great
return are lost.
The life pervading the songs of Roma is not only an enticement to a story, but is felt at a
metaphysical level, as a truth to be reached. Songs materialize as truth and contain cognitive
power. The song is a collaborative, joint achievement, between singer/narrator and interlocutor.
Every truth expressed in song is meaningful to others, and perceived in turn as their own truth.
Romani songs and Romani truth became the truth and songs of the collective. The truths amass
through the number of life ordeals through which the persons have passed, condensed into reality.
Numerous temptations are likewise reflected. From truth to truth, and between truths, there are
certain gradations. Some remain on the surface of the experiential, almost as a joke, and some
encroach deeply into the very core of life’s maze and the human condition.

Poem
(documented by Marija Aleksandrović My translation
2012, 198-199)
Phirav mange korkoro, I wander alone,
Kaj sem devla čororo. I am poor, Good
Phirav mange korkoro, I wander alone,
Kaj sem devla čororo. I am poor, Good,
Kaj sem devla čororo, I am poor, Good,
Najma dadoro. I do not have father.
Kaj sem devla čororo, I am poor, Good,
Najma dadoro. I do not have father.
Ej, kaj sem čororo, Ej, I am poor,
Ej, najma dadoro. Ej, I do not have father.
Te avelma mungro dad, If I had a father,
Te me dikhav leske vas. his hands to see.
Te avelma mugro dad, If I had a father,
Te me dikhav leske vas his hands to see,
Te zagrlil vi vo man. with them to hug me,
Thaj bahtalo te avav I would be happy.
Te zagrlil viv o man, With them to hug me,
Thaj bahtalo te avav. I would be happy.

71
 What dominates in the life of Roma is suffering. It becomes the general formulation for
life, and when translated into song, it reaches the zenith of existential distress. At that point the
song has its most expressive formulation in crying and longing. The crying and longing are the
main pillars of Roma poetry poetics. It is the only possible means of expression when there is
nothing left to feed the children, or when a woman runs away from her husband leaving him with
children and he feels incapable of organizing life, or the persecution by the police. The persistent
sequence of crying and longing leads some to believe that “[…] the verbal creativity of the Roma
is not characterized by a wide imagination” (Vujanović 2013). On the contrary, the Roma
imagination possesses the power of ritual, and connects life and song. Imagination is the general
spiritual condition of Roma, and in some songs it is possible to hear the cry in fear of death and
from prison, from women, beautiful girls, horses and fire (Tahirović-Sijerčić 2016).
One among many other examples is the folk song already mentioned Phirav mange
korkoro [I wander alone] documented in 2012 by Marija Aleksandrović (2012, 198-199).
The stories and poems or songs narrated by the paramičaro/i or hatamdžija/jka92 or sung
by the gilavutno/i93 take place in front of both small and large gatherings, and have always been
adjusted to the taste of a particular audience. In addition to song, Romani oral literature can
include dance. The combination of songs and dance created and used in some areas have led to
primitive forms of acting and theatre. A continuous negotiation of elements has characterized the
dynamics of Romani oral expression, based on collective understanding and ‘equalization’
mechanisms, and in conjunction with the changing socio-economic status of communities and
even religion, with paganism, Islam and various denominations of Christianity being adhered to.
These dynamics can affect the manners in which Romani poetry is understood and interpreted by
readers outside the Romani community.
The question of documenting and translating oral literature in a written form is
particularly complex for Roma due to the cultural and linguistic differences among them and
among the non-Roma who first published the work of Roma. The meanings of the translation
may be different depending on the tribal groups, subgroups, religious groups or some local small
groups and even families, and this opinion is underscored by Jean-Paul Clébert in his book The
Gypsies: “Each Gypsy tribe has in fact its mark by which it differs from other tribes” (my

92
Hatamdžija refers to a man who speaks invited stories, and hatamdžijka to a woman who speaks invited stories.
93
The translation of ‘singer’ in the Romani language is gilavno (a man singer) and gilavni (a woman singer).

72
translation, Clébert 1967, 232). Romani symbolism and its use in translation provides evidence
as to the encounters by Roma with people of different languages, religions, customs and different
cultures. They also provide evidence of some historical events, historical places, personalities and
other things that have marked the life of the Roma community or their groups and/or families.
Roma as carriers of oral folk literature do not necessarily try to find new ways of
expression; rather, they use common elements found in the first original narrative. They use
constant epithets and stable numbers such as 7, 9, 12 and 40, the usual comparisons, symbolic
names, hyperbole and contrasts.94 The hyperbole and contrasts are found very often in a variety
of short stories and poems, and they are without detailed description. They are used only to
express lines that can be enhanced through these devices. Individual expression is not
conventional and is only very slowly being incorporated as a new craft. This continuity with
tradition is characteristic of Roma; it is a practice which resonates with other minority ethnic
groups and their contribution to cultural survival (Toninato 2014, 117). The collective character
is the only thread that binds them; the paramičaro/i do not feel as individuals, but rather as
member of a collective group. What separates the paramičaro/i from the rest of the group is the
power of storytelling and use of a language that is not an everyday spoken language. It is
constructed as a specific language which contains the archaic words, gestures, facial expressions,
imitating heroes, syntax and morphological forms with which it achieves a special uniqueness
(Djurić 2010, 37). One and the same motives often receive different names, faces and places of
events or actions in its different ends. Thus, despite the constants alluded to earlier, essential is
the fact that a storyteller or singer will never recount the same story and song repeated in exactly
the same form twice. Its transmission from generation to generation by different narrators confers
an anachronistic character to the stories and songs. And, despite the preference for collective over
individual mentioned earlier, each narrator conveys and highlights his or her own individual
traits, for it is very important to reflect their talents (the power of telling a story or a beautiful
singing voice in singing) in addition to conveying the significance of the narrated events and
feelings.

94
Information according to Ljatif Demir’s investigation of traditional Roma literature. (Demir 2013)

73
 d. Romani literary production – on the question of ‘mother tongue’, ‘native
language’ and translation
The speech used by the community is very important to Romani translators and “[…]
even such a category as grammatical gender, often cited as merely formal, plays a great role in
the mythological attitudes of a speech community” (Jakobson 1959). In Romani, nouns do not
have a neuter form and are expressed in two genders: masculine and feminine. For example,
Roma speakers who speak Slavic and Albanian languages but do not have a good level of formal
education will drop their neuter and only use masculine and femine. In the way while Roma
speakers communicate it is clear to others that their original language is neither Slavic nor
Albanian, but Romani. The translator has to know how to deal with this problem and how to
work with the speech as it is actually used by the community.
Not only is Romani literary writing and translation heterogeneous, multilingual and
multicultural in its aesthetics and artistic expression; it is also subject to the tangible realities,
boundaries and complex historical contexts that inspire its birth and growth.
The question that is very important to investigate from a translation perspective is how
Roma writers write. Is the Romani mother tongue a source language? What is/are the target
language/s in translation? When does ‘real translation’ start and end? Beyond literary and artistic
expression, how much translation is involved in their everyday lives? We could argue that
translation is a vibrant cultural practice not only within the Romani communities settled in
Western Balkans but also within the broader, global ‘Romani community’ worldwide. Historical
specificities, as we have seen, bear this out, and characterize the community in general.
The rising level of education that ensued in the Balkans after World War II encouraged
development in the domain of the art of poetry. Poets found inspiration in their own experiences
and in the experience of being Roma. Unlike the folk tradition where the tragic situation of the
Roma people is seen through the prism of individual cases which are grouped collectively in the
form of a cry (Vukanović 1983, 156)95, the phenomenon of the new poets hinges on a poetic
statement that would replace the poetic expression of the cry with one of accusation
(Vujanović 2013). Inspiration for the new authors has been found in the unrest that has followed
Roma historically. Roma have had to flee from those who do not offer anything positive or good

95
My translation: I do not have father/ I walk alone, Why I am poor, Good,/ I do not have father!/When my father
would come,/to see his hands,/to hug me,/ I would be the most happy./ Ej, ej, why I am poor, I do not have father!/

74
for their existence and livelihood, especially for future generations and especially when there
is/was war.

75
CHAPTER III – CRITICAL APPROACHES TO ROMANI WRITING IN

TRANSLATION

This dissertation creates, for the first time, and in the area of Balkans historiography, an analysis
of Romani literature (poetry) selected from a corpus of writing I have gathered from Romani
authors in the Balkans. The fact that Romani literary production is still young and in an early
stage of development warrants their inclusion, in order to observe how the literary and literary
translation traditions actually are emerging and developing. All conventional genres – poetry,
novel, short story, drama – are included, although poetry is predominant96, since this is the genre
most widely adopted. It identifies the language pair/s97 they use in their writing and translation,
and highlights the Romani literary heritage through the concept of translation.
My research is quantitative in that it is composed of statistical data on the publications I
have gathered, and qualitative in that it is composed of a standardised questionnaire and author's
analyses used for the chapter on analysis. The underlying assumption for my project supports my
conviction that it is important to investigate Romani literary production as voices to be heard
from within Romani communities. The methodology is guided by the goal to be “Romani-
focused”.

3.1. Defining the corpus

To find the way how to typify or/and to define a corpus of Romani written, translated and
published work, it was necessary to introduce the meaning and definition of the corpus.
A corpus originally consisted of any collection of writing by an author and was identified
as hard-copy texts. Later, because of the use of computers, the corpus started to be a collection of
texts in an electronic form.
In recent years, according to Baker (1995) this definition changed in three ways:
(i) corpus now means primarily a collection of text held in machine-readable form
and capable of being analysed automatically or semi-automatically in a variety of
ways; (ii) a corpus is no longer restricted to 'writings' but includes spoken as well
as written text, and (iii) a corpus may include a large number of texts from a
variety of sources, by many writers and speakers and on a multitude of topics.
What is important is that it is put together for a particular purpose and according

96
Periodicals and newspapers containing published poetry or excerpts have not been sampled.
97
See Annex III – List of poets and language pairs

76
 to explicit design criteria in order to ensure that it is representative of a given
area or sample of language it aims to account for. (Baker 1995, 225)

In 1995 Baker introduced three main types of corpora for translation research and
pedagogy; comparable corpora where two collections of text are in the same language as an
original and as a translation; parallel corpora where original A and translated B texts are in
different languages; and multilingual corpora where involved comparable texts in more than two
languages “built up either in the same or different institutions on the basis of similar design
criteria” (Fernandez 2006, 87).
The term comparable corpus is not applicable to my corpus because the texts in my
corpus are written in a bilingual and/or multilingual way. The term parallel corpus could be partly
applied to define my corpus because of its advantage to be used as a ”consultation resource for
translation equivalence“ (Candel-Mora and Vargas-Sierra (2013, 320). The original, source
language texts in Romani are the language A, and their translated versions are in a language B
[Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian), Turkish, Italian, English, French,
German, Swedish, Bulgarian, Albanian, Arabic, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Romanian and
Slovenian]. Since Romani čhib is the original, source language A, the question is: how could we
typify their translated versions in language B if their self-translation/s, as always published in one
textbook with the original, are mostly compatible and are complementing each other, i.e. with
the original language A. So far, we can treat that corpus as a compatible complementary corpus.
Also, the fact is that my corpus, because of the languages involved in self-translation, can be also
considered multilingual.
Laviosa (2010), who built on Baker's work and modified the term corpus with specific
criteria of types i.e. six sets of contrastive parameters98, states that „[b]ilingual and multilingual
corpora consist of texts produced in two or more than two languages respectively“ (2010, 80).
Also, Kenny (1998/2009/2011) noted that bilingual or multilingual corpora
”contain texts in two or more languages” (1998/2009/2011, 60). Because all these definitions do
not seem to be complete to define the Romani corpus in this work, it brings me to my point to
define my corpus as a multilingual, compatible, complementary corpus. Another significant point
for my Romani corpus, is that

98
sample or monitor; synchroninc or diachronic; general (or reference) or specialized; monolingual, bilingual,
multilingual; written, spoken, mixed (written and spoken) or multi-modal; and annotated or non-annotated. (Laviosa
2010, 80-81)

77
 “[i]n modern linguistics a corpus is a collection of authentic texts held in electronic form
and assembled according to specific design criteria. These principles determine the
physiognomy of a particular corpus type.” (Laviosa 2010, 80)

Based on this definition of corpus by Laviosa, my concern was if we can even treat the
Romani collection as a corpus. If we think about Romani texts i.e. literature that has just started
to be written, developed and published mostly in hard-copies and has just started appearing in
electronic form, such as the one in this work, the following questions arise: Can we consider
multilingual, compatible, complementary Romani corpus, as I have already defined above, as a
corpus? Or, should we maybe consider the corpus I use in my work, according to Laviosa (2010,
80) as a sample (or finite) corpus which “is of finite size and contains abridged or full texts that
have been gathered so as to represent, as far as possible, a language or language variety,” or as
“[a] monitor (or open) corpus which is constantly supplemented with fresh textual material and
keeps increasing in size?” (Ibid.)
Since the corpus of Romani texts is not finite and develops constantly, and since it
does not represent a language or a language variety, but languages and Romani language varieties
and since it does not include other countries, genres, geographical areas i.e. countries, and other
types of translation we cannot take a sample (or finite) corpus for representation and definition
because it would lead us to a generalization of the Romani corpus. The corpus I chose for the
analysis in my work is a finite or a sample corpus as an example that takes into account self-
translated poetry by the poets from former Yugoslavia who use different dialects in Romani
writing with Serbo-Croatian self-translation. It leads the way as an entry and a stepping stone to
the creation of a Romani corpus. If we consider presented collection as a monitor (or open)
corpus which is constantly being supplemented and keeps increasing in size, it would be just
partly applicable because all the specific characteristics such as bilinguality/multilinguality and
self-translation will be ignored.
With all these concerns and respecting all these corpus definitions which can be just partly
applicable to my corpus, I found a way to get out of this dilemma by refering to Toninato (2004)
who stated that ”the structure of the body of Romani literature [...] is transnational and
multilingual almost `by definition', given the `diasporic' location of its authors“ (2004, 113).
Although the confines of her corpus are the Italian Roma, poetry by female Romani authors,
language, translation, identity, stereotypical representation, migration, culture, Romani
inteligencia and elite, she writes about the issues that are applicable to all Roma. In my opinion, it

78
leads rather to more generalizations than when investigating differences and different approaches
in writing and translation. Following Toninato's work (2014) and the fact that ”Romani literature
today is characterised by a highly varied corpus“, with a wide variety of genres”99 (2014, 71),
made me think about Toninato's four categories of Romani texts: poetic texts written and
published exclusively in non-Romani languages, multilingual literary collections by Romani
authors published in both major and minority languages, multilingual literary collection by both
Romani and non-Romani authors, and texts written and published exclusively in Romani
languages (Toninato 2014, 72). As Toninato's category of ”multilingual literary collections by
Romani authors published in both major and minoritiy languages“ (Ibid.) is applicable to my
corpus selection, I decided to define my corpus as multilingual, compatible, complementary
corpus.
The Romani corpus in this work being multilingual, one includes comparable texts in
more than two languages according to similar criteria where by the original and self-translation/s
compound and complement each other.

Procedure of selection
Except rarely, Romani literary works can hardly be found in book stores. Romani writers publish
mostly with local Romani NGOs or some small organizations. The only way to obtain their
literary work has been by attending some conferences or meetings within Romani international
and regional events. Gathering the works by Romani poets and writers over a thirty five-year
period and collecting it in my own library was possible just because of my activism and my
professional work that involved different Romani and non-Romani individuals, organizations and
institutions who worked in the field.
In terms of building the corpus for the thesis, I proceeded in four steps.
Firstly, I collected anthologies and Romani language-learning materials that mention
Romani works of literary expression and literature produced outside and in the Balkans.
Secondly, I created a multilingual corpus which includes Romani male and female writers
and their works of literary production that occurred in the context of the Balkans,100 i.e. Albania,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia,

99
ranging from transcriptions of oral narrative and autobiographical accounts and memoirs to novels, short stories,
drama, plays and poetry collections (Toninato 2014, 71)
100
Information provided in Annex IV: Romani literary works/my corpus

79
Romania, Slovenia and Turkey. It is in this geographical area that the most known Romani
published poets and writers live and write. They mostly write in Romani and self-translate their
work into the official national languages of the states they live in. Although this corpus contains
works dating back to 1978, most of it contains works written and published in the early 21st
century. While doing research for the purpose of my PhD thesis, I found that there is no known
written work by Romani authors from Albania and Turkey.
Thirdly, I selected for the corpus Romani poets/writers and self-translators from former
Yugoslavia. This selection was created because of my knowledge of Serbo-Croatian and Romani
language dialects. It is important to mention the enormous challenge of cross-checking
bibliographic data and validating multilingual transcriptions because of the problem of the war
and lost materials in the region of former Yugoslavia. The information about the poets and
writers found in different publications and sources sometimes differed. Therefore, I proceeded to
contact the poets personally in order to get the information I needed for my work.101
Fourthly, sampling was the next process after finalizing my selection of the poets and
writers for the analysis. The poets selected for the dissertation are from Montenegro, Macedonia,
Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina, who speak Romani, Serbo-Croatian102, English, German
and Turkish. Concerning the poets and self-translators from former Yugoslavia, I contacted them
personally and through their and my own networks of relationships. The languages facilitated my
approach to the poets and writers for consultation and for the correspondence needed for my
work.103
Variables that inform my sampling include different features which structure my corpus.
These variables are languages, dialects, self-translation, genre, geographical region, migration
and gender. My final corpus includes four poets: Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović from Montenegro who
migrated to Germany, Mehmed-Meho Saćip from Kosovo who was internally displaced in
Subotica (Serbia), Nedjo Osman from Macedonia who migrated to Germany, and myself, Hedina
Tahirović-Sijerčić from Bosnia and Herzegovina who migrated to Germany, then to Canada,
coming back to Germany, and returning to the country of origin, Bosnia and Herzegovina. This
selection of poets was made for many reasons: their work is published in bilingual and/or

101
In gathering information on Romani radio and television programs, not all editors of Romani programs were
available to answer the question about Romani programs they used to work for.
102
Today Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian.
103
I live also in the Balkans (Bosnia and Herzegovina). I know the poets/writers personally and I am also a poet and
writer myself.

80
multilingual editions; they self-translate their work; they are from different countries in former
Yugoslavia; they have common Serbo-Croatian104 language as their official national language
and as the language they were educated in; they all have their own migration history and
experience; and all the poets/writers work/ed for the radio and produce/d a Romani radio
program. The historical framework of their writing encompasses the past 35 years (from 1980s-
present).

3.2. Relevance of personal background

Being involved into and Romani Studies working on different issues on Roma
representing and self-representing the community, the relevance of personal background is of
enormous importance because the voice of community is given by an insider. It is easily possible
to acknowledge this work as being a work which can influence decolonizing the mind and
knowledge 105 (Denzin, Lincoln and Smith 2008), and the work which will be very soon on its
path to open up discussion and critique with non-Romani and also Romani academic voices.
Awareness of my belonging to a minority Romani language speaker community on the one hand,
and on the other hand belonging to multilingual majority speaker communities, to
Serbocroatian106 (Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin), Russian, German and English, as
well as awareness of my personal and professional identity awoke in my self-consciousness the
value of my identity, morality, my general educational background, lived experience, and also my
knowing and knowledge of others. Since I decided to use my own experiences, which are very
close to experiences of the analysed poets, the question of how to most appropriately describe my
work and my works involvement in my dissertation was a serious concern. The question about
subjectivity and its reflection on Romani community brought me to the ethnographic approach I

104
Serbo-Croatian, which is used by older generations; and nowdays national divided names of languages Bosnian,
Serbian, Montenegrin, and Croatian.
105
„The work must represent indigenous persons honestly, without distortion or stereotype, and the
research should honour indigenous knowledge, customs, and rituals. It should not be judged in terms of
neocolonial paradigms. [...] [R]esearchers should be accountable to indigenous persons. They, not Western
scholars, should have first access to research findings and control over the distribution of knowledge.“ (Denzin
2008, 2)
106
Serbocroatian is used here to refer to the language as it was denominated at the time of the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia from 1945 to 1992. It is still referred to as such by some writers of the older generation.
Since 1992, the languages that once constituted Serbocroatian have been reconceptualised as separate languages
along national lines, i.e. Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin. Publications prior to this date would have
used the term Serbocroatian, and will be noted here as such.

81
was searching for when attempting to properly define my work. As Peter Flynn (2010) stated, an
ethnography of translation is not possible to explain without knowing what ethnography is.
From one point of view, that of the textbook, doing ethnography is establishing
rapport, selecting informants, transcribing texts, taking genealogies, mapping fields,
keeping a diary, and so on. But it is not these things, techniques and received procedures
that define the enterprise. What defines it is the kind of intellectual effort it is: an
elaborate venture in, to borrow a notion from Gilbert Ryle, “thick description”. (Geertz
1973:6) (In Flynn 2010, 117).

I realized that it is not just about collecting data, description of translation done at a
certain time and place, the languages which cannot be separated from its users, and reflexivity
involved, but it is about the ethnographer who meets participants and their knowledge in the
research. In ethnography in a Translation Studies context, the ethnographer wants to provide
knowledge about so-called unknown others. In his/her relation with the Translation Studies
he/she focuses on translation and how translation frames intelectual effort in translated reality.
This reality is the culture in which the translator informs about the proper meaning, knowledge
about the unknown others' ways of thinking, ways of knowing and living which should be
understandable to the target readership. A translated text is not just a reflection of cultural
differences nor a reflection of translator’s subjectivity, but it is a reflection of relations in
mediation between cultures and groups in the process of translation. There is always a present
concern that target culture can be understood wrongly by target readership because of the
translator's limited knowledge of both cultures and both languages.

Since ethnography in the Translation Studies context

has been part of the ethnographic exercise from the outset both as a
practice and as a metaphor (Sturge 2007), as doing ethnography means researching
communities and groups who speak other languages than those spoken by community the
researcher is reporting to[,] (Flynn 2010, 116)
the issue of my subjectivity and my involvement in the analyses and self-analyses in my
dissertation would need a support of an auto(ethnography) as a research method that reflects
critically personal and professional creative experiences with their relevance for the personal
background.

82
 Autoethnography describes and systematically analyses personal experience,
different cultural experiences, acknowledges subjectivity, emotion and the researcher's influence
on research, as a way to reach a broad cultural, social and political understanding. Many scholars
turned to autoethnography because they expected a positive response to the critique of canonical
ideas on how research should be done. (Ellis, Adams and Bochner 2011). This critique does not
only involve ‘analytic’ method (Anderson 2006) presenting the true of the social world which is
under investigation, giving attention to objective writing and analysis, but also goes beyond the
social world and creates generalization. This method supports the silence of the researcher's self
while doing his/her research in a way that limits a researcher's influence on research and does not
acknowledge a researcher's emotionality. It can also reduce publishing opportunities for those
who do 'evocative or emotional’ research (Ellis and Bochner 2006) which is grounded in personal
experience and emotions.
Because of the involvement of myself as a researcher' and involvement of research
participants' personal experiences and emotions, evocative or emotional research is very
important for my work. It gives me the possibility to write in the first-person style, and see
myself also as the object of research. My narrative is evocative and through biographies, poems,
self-translations and self-analysis brings out details of the private lives of myself and of the
participants in the research. In this narrative, our life experiences meet and connect with each
other. Evocative research calls the readers into dialogue and awakens empathy and liveliness
within the Romani and non-Romani readership. It also has the possibility to produce a deeper
understanding of Roma poets in their writing, especially in writing poetry which is analysed in
this work, and it opens a new ways of knowing and knowledge for the non-Romani readers.
Accordingly, evocative or emotional research influences readers regarding the issues of identity,
and those experiences that are always in silence. It brings representations that deepen sympathy,
empathy for and understandings of the people who are different. (Ellis and Bochner 2000).
In these ways, I recognized my ways and started to produce evocative research in the
Romani context grounded in personal and community members’ experiences. Through this work
our silenced voices might turn into a loud voice, into self-representation in the hope of moving
other people to show empathy and understand Romani people. Our poetry and self-translations

83
are at the same time our self-narratives107 which involve ourselves within social spaces. As an
autoethnography promotes these forms it gives us the possibility to act as the analytic and the
evocative autoethnographers. As an analytic autoethnographer, I “focus on developing theoretical
explanations of broader social phenomena, whereas [as an evocative autoethnographer I] focus on
narrative presentations that open up conversation and evoke emotional responses” (Ellingson and
Ellis 2008, 445). Our poetry and self-translations are turned into narratives or self-narratives, and
can refer to “the ethnography of personal cultural experience and to autobiographical writing that
has ethnographic interests” (Alexander 2006, xx). Also, they can refer to autobiographic
reflections on ethnographic observations and an analysis of personally lived experience of each
participant in this work. Each self-translation is a reflection of written poetry in which reflexivity
and self-reflexivity give possibility to the researcher for a social and cultural critique. In such a
way, ethnography and autoethnography complement each other. Through the self-reflexivity of a
researcher and as a writer it is possible to ask ourselves on questions how and in which ways we
produce our knowledge, what is the notion of periphery and centre, what is our position in culture
(Alsop 2002). Methodology and critiques are lacking in the Romani context, but this work should
be the first created social and translation space in which these critiques can awaken.
I am also aware of the facts that create weaknesses and remarkable concerns in the use of
an autoethographic research method. The value of individual truth varies depending on
individuals' lives and their life experiences, and questions the value of subjectivity and objectivity
in the research. In a work i.e. research where personal experience is involved, self-consciousness
and morality come with a lot of fears, doubts and emotional pain. But this is something that
inspires researchers in autoethnography because they found the way to express years long
silenced voices. These silenced voices share the same fate with Romani voices. Also, problems
that appear could be a result of individual's subjectivity in relation to readership and readers’
different understanding and interpretation of research and researchers do not have any control
over it (Ellis and Bochner 2000, 737-738). This problem is relevant in my case i.e. in this work
and its understanding of individuals' interpretations which differs and depend on Romani and
non-Romani readership. My fear is a possible generalization of both. In the case of Romani

107
"The term narrative carries many meanings and is used in a variety of ways by different disciplines, often
synonymously with story (...) the narrative scholar (pays) analytic attention to how the facts got assembled that way.
For whom was this story constructed, how was it made and for what purpose? What cultural discourses does it draw
on—take for granted? What does it accomplish?" (RIESSMAN & SPEEDY, 2007, pp.428-429)

84
readers, it is because of common differences among Romani groups and their dialects, customs,
habits and expressions. A Romani individual can interpret and understand my work in favour of a
certain group that she/he belongs to. That means, it can be with sympathy or empathy, but also
with antipathy. In the case of non-Romani readership, interpretation and understanding can be
based on historical prejudices and stereotypes against Roma and deepen already present
misunderstandings, but also it can cause empathy and sympathy. In both cases, I count on the
changes and acceptance of knowledge which has been built through personal experiences of the
participants and myself.
Despite its advantages and weaknesses, autoethnography has served and recognizes the
importance of the relevance of personal background. As an autoethnographer, I am aware that I
write down ‘the experience of a historical moment’ (Denzin 2003, 234)
[t]he autoethnographer functions as a universal singular; a single instance of a more
universal social experience. […] That [e]very person is like every other person, but like
no other person [,] that [t]he autoethnographer inscribes the experiences of a historical
moment, universalizing these experiences in their singular effects on a particular life[,]
(Ibid.)
and that writing of these experiences refers to this particular historical moment within this
work. Let us consider the following questions: how do I feel while writing, self-translating,
translating and analysing myself and the other; how do the participants feel in this research while
writing, self-translating, being analysed, analysing and self-analysing; how to deal with
subjectivity and objectivity; who will read the work by a Romani researcher; how will readers
interpret it if they read it; how do the links between society and culture work? Can the answers to
these questions be found in ethnography and autoethography, in reflexivity and self-reflexivity?

3.3 Self–reflexivity as a method

Critique and its reflections on ethnographic work point to the “contextualization of translation
and rethinking about the translator as social and ethical agent which led to a self-reflexive turn in
TS” (Hermans in Munday 2009, 94). The issue of the relation between subject and object, in
which the subject can perceive the object precisely "through sensory perception and by way of
experience and evidence“[,] ”the dichotomy of subjectivism-objectivism, in spite of
acknowledging the possibility of discrepancies between the ‘real’ qualities of a given object and
its perception by an individual” (Dizdar 2012, 57)), has led to inconsistencies in empirical and

85
experimental research in Translation Studies. (Ibid.). Different personal experiences within
different cultures as shaped in certain historical periods of time have enabled us to acquire forms
of intercultural knowledge. This knowledge, which was previously not known or which was
believed not so important to be known came out through self-reflexivity and reflexivity.
Reflexivity is a tool to produce more science, not less. It is not designed to
discourage scientific ambition but to help make it more realistic. By helping the
progress of science and thus the growth of knowledge about the social world, reflexivity
makes possible a more responsible politics, both inside and outside of academia.
(Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, 194)

“In recent years critical approaches from other disciplines such as philosophy, ethnology
or sociology have helped to reshape Translation Studies and theories.“ (Dizdar 2012, 5)
The reception of anti-essentialist approaches from philosophy, most prominently
deconstruction, and sociology (sociology of translation), where the Bourdieusian
approach has been influential, has foregrounded the importance of reflexivity in
Translation Studies. Approaches from ethnology and anthropology have also helped
to question the observer's role in translation research. (Dizdar 2012, 6)

The question of representation opened up the discussion on the practice of ethnography as

a discipline, ”and was critical of the traditional idea of the ethnographer’s account of another
people as an unproblematic ‘translation of culture’“ (Hermans in Munday 2009, 103).
Also, Cronin in Translation and Globalization (2003), in referring to minority languages
under pressure from powerful languages, sees the danger of their dying at lexical and syntactic
levels in the way that over time they turn to the mirror-images and imitation of dominant
language/s, and that because of constant translation they cannot be more translated because there
is nothing left to be translated (2003, 141). Cronin prefers a translation of reflexion rather than
translation of reflection. Cronin defines reflection as „the imbibing of a dominant language that
produces the numerous calques that inform languages from Japanese to German to Irish“ (Ibid.).
Reflexion for Cronin refers to a second-degree reflection or meta-reflection which should be of
interest to translation studies researchers and their criticism of what ”a language absorbs and
what allows it to expand and what causes it to retract, to lose the synchronic and diachronic range
of its expressive resources.“ (Ibid.)
The translation of reflexion through the perspective of minority languages has its
relevance for my research. Romani čhib absorbs the form, syntax and lexics of dominant
languages, and also its translation is a mirror, and in many cases also an imitation, of dominant

86
language/s form, syntax and lexics. A fear of Romani čhib dying and consequently of its
translation lead to ”translation –as –assimilation“ and „translation –as-diversification“ (2003,
142). Speakers can be assimilated through self-translation into dominant language, or they can
also keep and develop their language through translation offices and go against and prevent
incorrporation. (Ibid.) Also, speakers and writers of Romani čhib have been assimilated through
self-translation into dominant languages as is the case with this research. Since Romani speakers
and writers do not have translation offices yet, they use different dictionaries (see the chapter on
language) of different Romani dialects to try to preserve Romani čhib and its translation through
intra-dialect exchange.
According to Tymoczko (2007/2010/2014)
[u]sing superordinate concepts of representation, transmission, and
transculturation as frameworks for evaluating and interpreting our own translations and
our own imperatives about translation fosters self-reflexivity. (2007/2010/2014, 139)

This is very important ”in translation studies where differences and otherness are at the
heart of the inquiry“ (Ibid.). The absence of a critical, self-reflexive activity, as stated by Cronin
(2003), can cause consequences if there is

[...] absence of commentary on linguistic transformations conceals

otherness and minority-to-major language translation but leaves minority
language vulnerable to extensive interference in majority-to-minor language
translation. Secondly, the lack of reflexion is not simply a question of language
shift but also related to the way in which major-language culture is informed by
minority language in translation [...], and how and in what way the minority
language is being altered by translation process. Thirdly, translation theory itself
remains hostage to the perception and interests of major languages. (2003,148- 9)

These consequences are notable within Romani čhib which is influenced by a large
amount of interference in majority–to-minor language translation. The problem of reflexion
appears because of the already translated information in majority language/s which
stereotypically prejudiced views of Romani čhib and culture mostly. The fact is also that
translation theory is mostly dominated by the English language and slightly less by other
dominant national languages, which completely excludes and limits Romani readers.
Many similarities and differences between myself and participants in my research
influenced how I positioned myself within my research and led me into the status of being at the
same time an insider and an outsider. I am also the researcher who, for the purpose of my own

87
research, is at the same time aware of the use of autobiography and the biographies of the
research participants to describe and analyse one’s research. Stanley’s (1990) concept of
‘intellectual autobiography’ involves an analytical and descriptive concern with specifics about
the way we come to the point that we understand the process that we undergo “by locating acts of
understanding in an explication of the grounded contexts these are located in and arise from"
(1990, 62). I am also both at home and away, someone who is studying and presenting my own
culture ”with a re-defined version of itself changes our language, widens our horizon and makes
us an outsider to those we re-visit“ ( Alsop 2002,[49]).
I found myself as an outsider who re-visits, and at the same time as an auto-ethnographer
for whom the use of self-reflexivity was the one possible way to look closer “at one’s own
longings and belongings” (Alsop 2002, [2]). Sharing my longings and belongings with my
community, sharing our social space, “connecting the personal and the cultural” (Ibid.), I also
have the possibility to look from a distance at these familiarities, and the ability to change others’
perceptions and attitudes about Roma and Romani writing. This change is the advantage which
autoethnography and its tool self-reflexivity allow me to do. As Holman Jones (2005) observes in
the Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies, autoethnography is
a balancing act. Autoethnography writes a world in a state of flux and movement-between
story and context, writer and reader, crisis and denouement. It creates charged moments
of clarity, connection, and change. (Holman Jones 2005, 764) in (Denzin, Lincoln and
Smith 2008, 360)

In writing an autoethography of the research process I am participating in self-reflexivity

by interrellating my struggles for power as an academic who researches, constructs and
deconstructs, positions and repositions my own experiences in Romani research through a
Romani lens. Representing Romani epistemology that is informed collectively by Romani people
through their beliefs and practices, an epistemology ”represents ways of knowing, being and
doing that are so much an individual knowledge process as they are collective“ (Summers 2013,
1), Romani ”experience of lived realities (Brant-Castellano 2000; Martin and Mirraboopa 2003;
Wilson 2001)“ (Ibid.). As a way of getting out of my struggles, I contribute to my narrative, i.e.
my research, that reflects my knowledge i.e. the knowledge of a Romni (Romani woman) who is
a researcher in the academic community. In researching my own community, I refer to

88
Indigenous108 ethnography as well as Native109 ethnography when referring to someone who has
an economic relationship based on subordination. Indigenous and Native ethnography bring
together my own community worldwide and our knowledge through an ongoing dialogue.

My work is built as a space narrative through a chain of many dialogues between me and
participants in the dissertation, between me and my supervisor, between me and the literature
involved into this work, between me and contacts important for the dissertation, between my
participants and monologues given in my and in their self-translations and self-analysis.
Reflexivity and self-reflexivity through dialogues and monologues raised questions about validity
and self-validity, representation and self-representation, consciousness and self-consciousness,
and critique and self-critique such as questions of different personal experiences in certain
historical periods and certain social spaces. In that dialogue it is possible to find belongings of
myself and belongings of the participants/poets I analyse in my work. It is also possible to find
connections between subjectivity and objectivity, connections between autoethnography and
ethnography, and connections between self-reflexivity, reflexivity, autobiography and biography.

3.4 Importance of self-translators

Biographical approaches are used with people who speak and write many languages and
where research awakens debate issues of referentiality in the relation that texts make with social
reality (Temple 2006, 7). Biographical approach tries to understand experiences of changing, and
views of individuals in their daily lives, which is important to them, how to provide
interpretations about their past, present and future. The importance of biographical data and the
biographies of self-translators is possible to understand if we provide the answers to the
questions: why the poet self-translates, what is the motive for his/her writing, and how historical,
social and political situations affect the motive of his/her writing.
Self-translators, according to Hokenson in Cordingley (2013, 44), need to be placed ”as a
singular figure in the historical interchanges between languages and between social milieus”, and

108
“Indigenous ethnography may be conducted by anyone researching their own community“. (Denzin, Lincoln,
Smith 2008, 351)
109
“Native ethnography „can be distinguished from indigenous ethnography in that native ethnographers are those
who have their origins in non-European or non-western cultures and who share a history of colonialism, or an
economic relationship based upon subordination. (Tedlock, 2000, 466)“ (Denzin, Lincoln, Smith 2008, 351).

89
their bilingual texts “tend to spring directly from more personal and immediate motives some
unique but most largely shared among them.” (Ibid.). In the case of Romani self-translators, they
experience the different status of their language i.e. Romani čhib in many ways (see chapter on
language), and of their social and political status, which creates their different motivations for
self-translation. Their motivation is influenced by different biographies, life stories, their literary
history and history of self-translation, their life history which is always linked to the spaces
where they live.
The life history, a particularly favoured form of ethnographic data in recent years, is a
special case of following the plot. [...] Life histories reveal juxtapositions of social
contexts through a succession of narrated individual experiences that may be obscured in
the structural study of processes as such. They are potential quides to the delineation of
ethnographic spaces within systems shaped by categorical distinctions that may make
these spaces otherwise invisible. These spaces are not necessarily subaltern spaces
(although they may be most clearly revealed in subaltern life histories), but they are
shaped by unexpected or novel associations among sites and social contexts suggested by
life history accounts. (Marcus 1998, 94)

For Roma, these spaces are linked with their ˮsubaltern life histories” (Ibid.) where,
because of that, different versions of biographies, different life stories are found in different
sources. To get the exact biographical data, authors, i.e. self-translators, were asked to prove it
for validation and cross-validation. At that moment of approval, biographies turned for them into
their autobiographies as complementing each other, but still, at the same time, remain biographies
for the purpose of my work.
A problem in biographical research occurs because of the different use of the terms which
form the biographical method such as life, self, experience, ethnography, autoethnography,
narrative, history, writing presence, difference, biography and autobiography (Denzin 1989, 27),
and because of their interchangeable use. A life story is the story that a person chooses to tell
about the past life that she/he lived. It is complete and honest as possible about the things that
arise from remembering and what the teller likes the others to know about it. Also, it is important
to mention oral history/life stories which ”encourages us to rethink dominant research practice
from a mode of knowing about to knowing with [,]“ (High, 2016), and oral history research
ethics that includes obtaining informed consent i.e. a participant's agreement to participate,
mitigation of harm i.e. deep emotional pain to participant/s and researcher, and the right to
withdraw i.e. a participant can ask to end the recording of an interview and ask to destroy the

90
interview. Dialogue and collaboration in the process must be covered by trust and shared decision
making.
A life history is a complete narrative of experience of the whole life of a person, where
very important details are highlighted. In this work, life story and life history are intertwined with
biography and autobiography, with authors’ poems and their self-translations.
The term biographical research in this work will denote all the work and material used to
understand self-translators’ individual experiences and lives. Biographical research supports a
view of individuals such as the view of self-translators who are creators of meanings, and who act
in the way that enables their social existence, such as the way the Romani self-translators found
their own way of social existence. Also, knowing the poets’ and/or at the same time self-
translators’ biographies (see Chapter IV) I could consult them for the biographical and
autobiographical documents and books, and keep them in dialogue through which I got a clear
and exact reception of their expression and meaning.
A biographical approach takes on the issues of representation and language and it is very
rare in the debate between biographical sociologists and translation scholars. An important issue
is the language and research with people whose first language is not English. (Temple 2006, 9)
“The language issue is seen as a technical concern rather than an issue of voice and
representation“ (Ibid.). Biographical research reflects translation research, and the tendency of
this approach is to collect and interpret the lives of others as a part of human understanding
(Ibid.).
This understanding in case of Romani self-translators is of interest to me not just because
of different tribes' and groups' voices and representation, their experience and knowledge, but
also because of Romani dialect differences that are used in writing, translation, self-translation,
and in the analysis and self-analysis that lead to a better understanding.

3.5 Linguistic – literary analysis

In order to carry out my analysis more effectively, as I already mentioned, I limit the scope of my
research and focus on the Western Balkan countries of former Yugoslavia, not only because of
my fluency in the regional language(s) but also because of my knowledge of Romani dialects in
the region. The most appropriate language pair for my thesis is Romani in its 4 dialects, Gurbeti

91
(Xoraxano) from Montenegro, Arli from Kosovo, a combination of Arli (Kovački - Bugurdjijski)
and Gurbeti (Djambaski) from Macedonia, and Gurbeti from Bosnia and Herzegovina, spoken in
the region of former Yugoslavia as a source language, and Serbocroatian as the target language.
The analysis also includes German and English target texts. The Turkish target text will not
analysed because I do not know Turkish. The English translations are my own and are provided
to orient English-language readers as to the subject matter and poetic form.
In the analyses of the Romani poets and their poems, each section follows a similar
format. The format I use for the chapter referring to my analysis contains the poets' biographical
information and literary production, poems introduced in the original and self-translated versions
along with their English translation i.e. both the original and self-translated versions, analysis of
each version of the poems i.e. of the original and self-translation/s based on the literal translation
in English, the poets' own self-analysis and comments that follow these self-analyses (see chapter
IV). I faced the problem of formulating adequate terminology in the process; terms such as
source text, target text, original language, second language, and self-translation were a source of
confusion. I was also unsure of the proper way of labelling them. The process of translation flows
between two different languages, which causes a change of the original written text as a source
text (ST) in the source language (SL) into a written text as the target text (TT) in the target
language (TL). Therefore, the authors’ original, written text was translated by translator/s who
must be very proficient in both languages, but not necessarily so much familiar with the SL
culture. Categories such ST, SL, TT, TL are problematic in my case because the ST is written by
the author who self-translates his/her own work into TT, who is a speaker of both or more
languages, and who is at the same time, very familiar with his/her own culture and its differences
and with the TL culture and its differences.
The texts written by authors are original versions in Romani dialects and the self-
translated texts are versions in Serbocroatian that can be also treated as the second created work
or as recreated work. These two versions complement each other and are in a dialogue. Because
of the characteristics of the Romani language and their contact languages and the role of the
second language/s, and also because of Romani bilingualism and/or multilingualism, the way that
seemed the most appropriate in my analysis was to label the versions as AL1 (the language in
which the poem was first written), AL2/AL3/AL4 (as subsequent self-translation(s), NAL1/
NAL2/ NAL3/ NAL4 as a non-author’s language, i.e. a translation not done by the author and, in

92
this case, an English translation of the original and of each self-translation as to the subject matter
and poetic form.110
The analyses are performed on the AL versions, i.e. the original version and the self-
translated version in order to show the categories that have helped me to investigate how TT
functions in relation to the ST, considering two general translation strategies either direct and
oblique, and the seven translation methods or procedures proposed by Vinay’s and Darbelnet
(1973). As stated by Munday (2012), Vinay and Darbelnet’s translation strategy is the
“orientation of the translator […]” and procedures are specific techniques or methods which are
used “by a translator at a certain point in a text” (2012, 57), on the basis of the appropriate
translation procedure chosen by the translator.
Choosing the direct translation strategy, which mostly looks like word-for-word quotation
of the original message in the target language, I was aware of its three translation procedures:
borrowing, calque and literal translation. Also, choosing the oblique translation strategy which is
used when a literal translation is unacceptable because of the lack of equivalence between the
original version and the self-translation version, in which the translator develops and presents in
detail a brief statement of the main points of the content of the original message, I was aware of
its four translation procedures: transposition, modulation, equivalence and adaptation.
Even though Viney and Darbelnet’s model works with isolated language units where the
difference between categories that affect the whole text is not shown, it benefited my work by
helping me to find the differences and similarities in language systems and grammar in AL
versions, to show similarities and differences in the semantics of the terms and writing styles, to
compare them in the original version and in the self-translation versions, and to point out the
issue of equivalence, and faithfulness in the analysis of this work. Later on, this model helped me
to investigate how the AL versions i.e. original Romani and self-translated Serbocroatian
versions complement each other according to their common stylistic forms and grammatical
structures.
Nevertheless, being aware of the model’s disadvantages because of its focus on
translation result rather than on translation process, and because of the criticism for being just a
“comparison between English and French at all levels of words, phrases, and sentences taken out

110
The poems are provided in their original formats in the Appendix II. In this chapter they have been formatted
within tables for easier reference.

93
of context” (Waliński 2015, 64), this model can be regarded as a model that the other translation
strategies and procedures relied on later, such as by Newmark (1981, 1988) and Schreiber (1993,
1998).
The direct translation strategy literal procedure i.e. word-for-word as the most used
translation procedure in my analysis causes problems related to incompletness in understanding
and meanings of the texts. This turned my attention to the use of oblique strategy procedures that
allows us to investigate text solutions and sense or meaning making. Therefore, I applied the
sense-for-sense or free translation procedure and its focus on capturing the sense of the source
text i.e. of the original Romani and self-translated versions in its extension. According to
Munday (2012)
[t]he distinctions between “‘word-for-word’ (i.e. ‘literal’) and ‘sense-for-sense’ (i.e.
‘free’) translation can be seen “back to Cicero (106-43 BCE) and St Jerome (347-420
CE). [...]Although some scholars (e.g. Vermeer 1994: 7) argue that these terms have been
misinterpreted, Jerome’s statement is now usually taken to refer to what came to be
known as ‘literal’ (word-for-word) and ‘free’ (sense-for-sense) translation. Jerome
rejected the word-for-word approach because, by following so closely the form of the ST,
it produced an apsurd translation, cloaking the sense of the original. The sense-for-sense
approach, on the other hand, allowed the sense or content of the ST to be translated. In
these poles can be seen the origin of both the ‘literal vs. free’ and ‘form vs. content’
debate that has continued until modern times. (Munday 2012, 30).

Using a sense-for-sense translation procedure, led to flowing translated texts which transmit the
meaning of both, the original version AL1 and self-translated AL2/AL3… version/s without
distorting the target English language meaning (NAL3 version).

Romani AL1 Word-for-word Serbocroatian AL2 Word-for- Sense-for-sense of

of AL1 word of AL2 AL1 and AL2
English NAL1 English NAL2 English NAL3

Kate si o mursh There is a man Vidim muškarca I see a man There is a guy
Vov anel o He brings kako stoji standing He makes you cry.
dukhado brsh. painful year. I godinu bolnu ti And a year
kroji. painful to you
tailors.

94
 The examples of Viney’s and Daberlnet’s direct translation procedures “as tool of textual
analysis that represents a process of searching for notable semantic and formal relations arising
between the original and the target text” (Vinay and Darbelnet in Venuti, 2000, 28) that I provide
below illustrate my approach to the analysis, and provide an answer on the question of how the
target text (TT) functions in relation to the source text (ST), or rather to provide an answer to the
question of how a self-translation version functions in relation to the Romani version.
In applying the direct strategy first procedure, by borrowing we take a word from the
source language (SL) and keep this word in the target language (TL). According to Viney and
Darbelnet in Shutetleworth and Cowie (2014), this procedure is the simplest type of translation
because it “involves the transfer of an SL word into TT without it being modified in any way.”
(Ibid.)
In my work, there is no borrowing from the original Romani version AL1 into self-
translated versions AL2, AL3... In the case where the Serbocroatian language is the original
version AL1 and Romani čhib i.e. a self-translated version AL2, borrowing is present in the poem
CV6 in the first stanza (the words kazane, kotlove).

Serbocroatian Romani English

Kucao sam kazane i kotlove Cherdem xarkumache sheja, I tapped cauldrons and
od bakra. kazane thaj kotlove. copperboilers.

The second procedure of direct strategy is a calque, the term which is used when an
expression from the SL is transferred literally into the TL “to produce a TL equivalent” (Ibid.).
An example of a calque in translation in the poem Drabarni/Gatara/Fortune-Teller can be
found in the first stanza. In the Bosnian translation the word phendam is lent from Romani and it
is synonymous to the word vacharav in Romani. I do not generalize it, but this example, as the
only one in my work, should be used as a stepping stone for its investigation within other poems
and works.
Romani Bosnian English
Ando fildzano me dikhav U fildžan ti gledam From inside this cup
Tuche baxt the vacharav. Sreću da ti phendam. I will tell of your luck.

95
 The third translation procedure of direct strategy is a literal, or word by/for word
procedure. It is only used when an SL word or text is translated into a TL word or text without
paying attention to the style, but with a great focus on grammar and idioms used in the way that
does not alter the meaning in the TL. The “translators’ task is limited to observing the adherence
to the linguistic servitudes of the TL” (Viney and Darbelney in Venuti 2000, 80).
As already written, the literal translation procedure i.e. word-for–word translation, is the
most applied procedure in the analysis chapter of this work. This translation procedure is the
most common procedure when translating “between two languages of the same family [...], and
even more so when they also share the same culture.” (Vinay and Darbelnet in Venuti, 2000, 86).
Even though Romani čhib and Serbocroatian do not belong to the same language family, I am
convinced of the necessity of using literal translation because of the specificities of Romani čhib
and its use of grammar, morphological and orthographic forms from the Serbocroatian language.
At that point, Romani depends and relies on Serbocroatian as a TL. Because of that and because
of the natural bilingualism and multilingualism of Romani poets that are analysed in this work
(see chapter on language), “translation does not involve any specific stylistic procedure” (Vinay
and Darbelnet in Venuti 2000, 87), but involves grammar. While comparing both, Romani as SL,
i.e. AL1 version, and Serbocroatian as TL and as self-translation i.e. AL2, AL3... versions in
literary, it became obvious that Romani čhib uses the Serbocroatian language structure as a
common language structure in writing and translating i.e. self-translating. In my work,
Serbocroatian is the closest contact language to Romani as well as the closest contact culture
among the culture/s of former Yugoslavia; influences of both on Romani are notable.

Romani AL 1 Word-by-word from Serbocroatian AL2 Word-by-word from

Romani AL1 to Serbocroatian AL2 to
English NAL 1 English NAL 2
O anav lakro cahra/ Her name is tent// Ime joj je čerga/ Her name is tent//
Adžahar pendjardi/ Everywhere known Celom svetu znana/ Known to all the
Dajekh drom tu da Once upon a time I ti si nekada video/ world/
dikhela/ you saw/ Dim i vatru čerge// And you
Lakri jag thaj lakro Her fire and her sometimes saw /
thuv// smoke// Smoke and fire of
the tent //

96
 Even though they share a common linguistic structure, the differences in culture/s, habits
and customs are considerable, which creates a problem of understanding. These differences can
bring about another meaning and consequently another inadequate understanding, such as in this
example:

Romani ST (original version AL1) English TT (word-for-word)

Thov talo fildzano sumnakuni angurusti Put under the cup a golden ring
Ka cherel tut abijavehchi luludji. It will make for you a wedding flower.

Serbocroatian TT (self-translation AL2) English TT (word-for-word)

Ispod fildžana zlatni prsten stavi Under the small cup golden ring put
Svadbeni cvijet biće ti u glavi. Wedding flower will be in your head.

Since I found a literal translation procedure unacceptable because of the lack of fidelity
and the lack of complete understanding of the meaning, I followed the advice of Viney and
Darbelnet in Venuti (2000, 87) “to turn to the methods of oblique translation“ and decided as
stated out by Ni (2009)
[d]irect and oblique translation in some degree are correspondent to literal and free
translation resprecively, one of the difference for their [Vinay and Darbelnet’s] theory
from the theories in ‘pre-linguistic period’ (Newmark, 1981,p.4) is that Vinay and
Darbelnet use detailed categories to substitute for macro-level’s literal and free. (2009,
78).

Transposition, the first translation procedure in an oblique strategy “involves replacing

one word class with another without changing the meaning of the message. Transposition is an
intentional and often unavoidable grammatical change that occurs in translation from SL into TL,
and it can be obligatory or optional.” (2000, 88).

97
Romani Serbocroatian Grammar change
E gindese del phaka I poželi nešto Noun – verb, verb - pronoun
Bariljum bugjake Moje rastanje postao je rad Verb – noun
Lakri majšukar amalin Njene su najljepše drugarice Singular - plural
i čar, i len hem dajekh bar Poljane reke kamenje

Modulation is the way in which translator finds naturalness in a translation, i.e. self-
translation, without missing any meaning and exactness from the ST.
Vinay and Darbelnet in Venuti (2000) explain equivalence as cultural and as something
that readers of the target culture recognize in idiomatic expressions, although literal translation
can leave these readers in confusion. (2000, 90). Viney and Darbelnet's understanding of
equivalence “should not be confused with the more common theoretical use“ (Munday 2012)
where it refers to a relationship between ST and TT, which makes it possible to produce
translation. The notion of equivalence that was introduced to translation theories in the 1960s and
1970s and points to the ST and TT which share some kind and degree of ‘sameness,’ which
creates different kinds of equivalence (Panou 2013, 2). These different kinds and degrees of
equivalence led to criticisms and debates about their analysis.
Since my work has its focus on self-translation, I will refer to Hokenson and Munson
(2007, 9) who state that the terms 'equality', 'commensurability' and 'equivalence' are nowhere as
problematic as in self-translation. The problem can be identified in the relation with publishers
and literary critics who might forget that in the case of self-translation a writer is at the same time
in the SL and in the TL, in the SL culture and in the TL culture, or rather that one hand writes an
SL text and in the TL text. Also, the problem is in the terminology used to label SL and TL
because the texts are considered as versions and/or as an original and a self-translation. Self-
translator acts in a way that he/she decides to, in a way that he/she understands the issue of
fidelity and adequacy. The next problem appears because his/her self-translation can be
considered as the second creative work but not as translation, or even as a recreation of the first
text.
In the analysis in my work, since self-translators are able to write in two or more
languages and each language fits appropriately in the cultures they live in and with, I decided to
rely mostly on fidelity and adequacy, with an extention to formal and dynamic equivalence.

98
These terms are coined by Eugene Nida who avoided old terms: literal, free and faithful
translation. “Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and
content” [...] and the dynamic one, based on ‘the principle of equivalent effect’, where ‘the
relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed
between the original receptor and the message’. (Nida 1964a:159)” (in Munday 2012, 47-8).
Nida (in Venuti 2000, 154) claims that content and form mutually affect each other but
priority is given to to the different nature of the message, where in some messages the content is
of primary consideration and in other messages the form. In other words, dynamic equivalence
searching for the nearest natural equivalence to the SL message. (Shabnam 2013, 1). Nida states
that translation cosists of “reproducing in the receptor language the natural equivalent of the
source language message, first in terms of meaning and second in terms of style.“ (in Venuti
2000, 127). According to Nida, the content of poetry is limited and reflected by its form, where
attention given to “formal elements than one normally finds in prose (in Venuti 2000, 154), and
therefore the form of a poem translated into the form of prose would be inappropriate
correspondence to the original. Also, in some cases such as in the case of the Old Testament of
the Bible, which was written in the poem form, the content is more important than the form and
the message has priority.
Malmkjaer uses Nida’s terms as a basic for her discussion and says that the attribute of
formal equivalence which can be seen in form and content pays attention to the translation which
is concerned with correspondence of poetry to poetry (Malmkjaer 2005, 30). This is important for
my work since there is also concerned correspondence of poetry to poetry, and of self-translation
and translation. At the same time, dynamic equivalence applies to the translation in which the
naturalness of expression is complete, the receptor’s i.e. self-translator’s way of behaviour is in
relation to his/her own cuture, and in relation to translators translating SL and ST they not belong
to. It has to be mentioned that a translator does not insist that he/she understands cultural patterns
of the source- language to comprehend the message (Ibid.), but self-translators in my work do
understand because they live bilingual and bicultural and/or multilingual and multicultural life.
The understanding of cultural patterns of the source-langauge is not a concern of a self-translator
in my analysis because they live and they are educated in the culture of source-language. The
awareness of inseparability of their original and self-translation, of their and source-language
culture has been a conscious, natural way in approaching writing of the Romani poetry.

99
 Adaptation is “a special kind of equivalence, a situational equivalence” (Vinay and
Darbelnet in Venuti 2000, 91). Adaption and equivalence are more typical for a metaphorical and
fictitious literary text. It refers to the cases where SL message is unknown in the TL culture, and
because of that translator creates a new situation which can be treated as an equivalent. (Ibid.)
The focus of translator and his/her goal when adapting is to have the same effect on the TL
readers, where SL cultural meaning is replaced by another term in the target culture as shown in
this example111:

Romani Serbocroatian English

Pe sinija ačhile Na sofri nam ostaše On our dining

table there are

Since language is inseparable from culture, and visa versa, not just linguistics but also
cultural differences have set a lot of challenges in literary translation. These challenges appeared
in relation to literary texts’ and literary translation characteristics. According to Jones (2009 in
Baker and Saldanha eds. 2009) literary texts:
[...]have a written base-form, though they may also be spoken; they enjoy
canonicity (high social prestige); they fulfil an affective/aesthetic rather than
transactional or informational function, aiming to provoke emotions and/or entertain
rather than influence or inform; they have no real-world truth-value – i.e. they are
judged as fictional, whether fact-based or not; they feature words, images, etc.,
with ambiguous and/or indeterminable meanings; they are characterized by ‘poetic’
language use (where language form is important in its own right, as with word-play or
rhyme) and heteroglossia (i.e. they contain more than one ‘voice’ – as with, say, the many
characters in the Chinese classic Shui Hu Zhuan / Water Margins Epic); and they may
draw on minoritized styles – styles outside the dominant standard, for example
slang or archaism. (2009: 152)

In other words, literary texts are in a written form, canonical, they have aesthetic function,
they focus on emotion, they have feature words with indefinable meanings, they have poetic
language use, and heteroglossia.

111
For detailed explanation about the sinija and sofra see chapter on analysis (Chapter IV).

100
 Traditionally, literary translation studies have focused on source-target text relation
where the attention has been given to debates about equivalence and communicative purpose,
concern about style which defines the writer’s cultural space-time, his/her use of non-standard
styles such as archaism, dialect, and the use of other style were possible for the writer to encode
his/her viewpoint on the content of a text, to label different voices, and structure of the text
(2009, 153). Literary translation characteristics are
expressive, connotative, symbolic, focusing on both form and content, subjective,
allowing multiple interpretation, timeless and universal, use devices to raise
communicative effect, [has] tendency to deviate from the language norms (Belhaag 1997,
20)[,] must reflect all the literary features of the source text as sound effects,
morphophonemic selection of words, figures of speech...etc. (Riffaterre 1992, 204-205).”
(Hassan 2011, 2-3).

These characteristics could be seen in literary translation in which literary translators deal
with different literary genres being aware of their linguistic, pragmatic and cultural elements, and
their differences from the target culture and the target readership.
According to Janes, literary translation can be seen as “a communication process” where
two TS approaches are data-driven and theory-driven. Data-driven approach treats translation as
behaviour and it is informed by translator’s reports and their experiences in practice, interviews,
and as cognitive-pragmatic where the analysis is “informed by literary cognitive stylistic and the
pragmatics of translation”. (Jones in Baker and Saldanha eds. 2009, 154).
In literary translation both content and form are important in transference of the spirit of
the original text and the writers’ style. Since my work analyses poems in self-translation there
have been raised questions such as: is the literary self-translation literal or/and free; how self-
translators use the wording in their original texts and how in their self-translated texts; does the
style, content and form of the original follows the style, content and form of their self-translation;
is self-translation faithful and adequate; what devices are used by self-translators in their writing
and self-translations, etc. Thinking about these questions makes me think about an appropriate
way I should apply for my analysis. At this point, I have to say that literary analysis/criticism on
Romani poetry and Romani translation and self-translation has not been done yet.
Both data-driven and theory-driven approaches are applicable to my analysis and both
complement each other. My literary analysis is informed by myself through my experience as a
poet, self-translator and translator, through the participants and their poems and self-translations,

101
through their experiences, through their self-analysis that they provided according to the
questionnaire I sent them (see the questionnaire in the annex), through the interaction among
different dialects of Romani that are used in poems, and different versions of Serbocroatian that
translation is based on. Because self-translators decide by themselves which forms, and in which
ways they use their creativity, I decided slightly to interconnect the issues which are common for
the textual analysis of a poem, such as form, rhythm, rhyme, metre, verse, stanza, effects, image,
symbols, tone, content, sound, etc., with social, and cultural, and with the issue of readership, to
better present the reality of literary self-translation, along with the issue of identity in the
original Romani version and in the Serbocroatian self-translation.
Analysing poems and their self-transaltions I am aware that I have used an introspective
analysis that is based on empirical evidence, which helped in direct and indirect way to collect
the knowledge, consequently raised the issue of literary critics in Romani context, and within this
work it can be treated as beginning of Romani literary criticism.
After I analysed the poems and their self-translations, I now want to provide some initial
observations. Firstly, most Romani poets in the Balkans (and perhaps elsewhere) publish their
poetry in bilingual and/or multilingual versions, which reflect the linguistic status and experience
of the authors. Second, many if not most poets self-translate, or carry out some version of self-
translation. Third, the ‘source’ and ‘target’ texts (problematic terms in this case) of the self-
translating poet are complementary. Both or multiple versions of the same self-translated poem
seem to be written either with the intention of being read together, or completing one another.
This complementarity has been produced by the luck of understanding of different Romani
dialects that the authors write in. While writing they consult the dictionaries and terminology of
other dialects, and also create own derivatives which cause the problems even to the readers of
the same dialect group. The language/dialects that readers and speakers use is very much
influenced by the contact Serbocroation language, and this influence depends on the level of
readers’/speakers’ education. In the way the languages are complementing and compoun each
other the possible missunderstandings which can be produced by readership can be escaped.
Also, creating Romani and non-Romani readership might be of advantages for Romani poetry in
self-translation, and for promoting Romani čhib. According to the authors and self-translators'
answers on the questions I asked, which are provided in the annex of this work, and according to
my experience as a Romani author and self-translator, it means that the original and self-

102
translated versions are written mostly simultaneously. Self-translators' counsciousness about all
differences of Romani dialects and the publishing situation in Romani minority language, made
them aware of a need to create their work bilingually and/or multilingually. The specifics of
Romani literature, which is mostly multilingual, and mostly self-translated motivated me to
create a new category of Romani corpus as multilingual, compatible complementary corpus.
The model of my analysis is multi-oriented and multi-part:
a) I critique poets' poems according to Vinay and Darbelnet's translation strategies and
procedures, and I do literary analysis according to combined data-driven and theory-driven
literary translation approaches applied to literary self-translation involving text analysis strategies
(literal and free);
b) I critique my own poems using Vinay and Darbelnet's translation stategies and procedures, I
do literary analysis according to combined data-driven and theory-driven literary translation
approaches applied on literary self-translation involving the introspective analysis based on
empirical evidence, self-reflexivity, and text analysis strategies (literal and free);
c) I ask poets to self-analyse i.e. self-critique their work according to the questions which can be
found in the annex of this work;
d) I asked one poet to analyze and critique my two poems according to the questions which have
been already mentioned in this work.
To corroborate my thinking about the differences in analysis that can influence different
understanding of readers, I asked the poets to analyse their poems so that their self-translated
poems follow their self-analysis of the work.
While the poets were working on their self-analyses, my reflection on the word “self,” in
“self-translation,” “self-knowledge,” and “self-analysis,” in relation to my work and in relation to
the other and self, enhanced the question on “self-reflexivity,” and on the reason to include my
poems in my work. My first poem was written in Romani and self-translated into Bosnian and
English; and the second was first written in Bosnian and self-translated into Romani and then
English. Asking poet Ruždija Ruso Sejdović to analyse my poems and self-translations, which he
accepted with pleasure, I had an intention to reach not just subjective but also an objective view
on my work. I asked the questions such as: what do you think about my poems and my poetic
expression; what elements are used in the writing strategy; what are the motives of the poems and
how can you designate the motives in my writing; how do you know that poems are about Roma;

103
what do you think about difference/s of my writing regarding the other Romani poets; what
extend are traditional and cultural elements present in my poems; do readers understand the
context of the original Romani and the context of self-translation separately; what readership is
moved by bilingual poems Romani or non-Romani. Sejdović answers provided in the analysis of
my poems led me to point out the following questions: what challenges are there while self-
translating from Romani into an official national language, and what are the challenges while
translating from an official national language into Romani; what differences are we aware of;
what is validity of this work and how to reach acknowledgment because of involved subjectivity.
My thoughts were if the poets/writers are self-analysing their self-translation, and if I
analyse the other, and the other poet my poems, would it not be possible, along those lines, to
create a foundation for an early Romani literary criticism, which is currently lacking? Would it
not awaken the interest and need for TS in the context of Romani studies?

3.6 Proposal of typology of critique

After defining my corpus as a multilingual compatible complementary corpus which includes

four poets i.e. self-translators, I proceeded to explain the importance of personal background and
the way how I came to the use of ethnography and autoethnography as methods in my work.
Self-representing languages and knowledge of cultures was possible by combining
autoethnography and ethnography, using their tools reflexivity and self-reflexivity in research
and practice. At the same time, it is very important to focus on personal experiences,
biographies, autobiographies, consciousness, self-counsciousness, and morality. All of that is a
proof of decolonizing the knowledge in Romani context. It raises the question on memory, oral
history and history. This is an experimental model of research which evaluates self-translators’
work and their use of the literary and linguistic expression with the announcement of cultural
specifities and differences. Through this model it is possible just to evaluate presented
knowledge. The users and readers of this narrative should accept this limitation, knowing the fact
that a single autoehnographic narrative analysis such as this one cannot lead to generalization, but
can be used as inspiration for understanding future research. This work opens new views for
readers through personal sense and empathy. As this work can be treated as a single case which
cannot be used for the generalization of facts, and as a stepping stone for raising empathy for

104
researches in the frame of Romani context, future research can deal with works of more poets,
writers, self-translators and translators from different geographic areas.
The analysis of the poems and their self-translation is done mostly through the word-for-
word Vinay’s and Darbelnet’s translation procedure, which allows the analysis of the
compatibility of the original and the self-translation versions. Literary expressions of original
versions are very close to literary expression in self-translation. The linguistic issue is very
common since the Romani uses the gramatical structure of Serbocroatian, possessing the
knowledge which is linked to the reception and experience of living with and between different
cultures. Since autoethnography analyses a researcher’s experience of participating in research
through self-reflection, self-observation, inner-perception, introspection (Polkinghorne 2005,
138), self-analysis could be considered as a part of it. Self-analysis of self-translators through
reflexivity and self-reflexivity opens a possibility for new insights and actions – for
transformation and for change. Hence, “as a vehicle for reflexivity”, autoethnography is a way to
upgrade the process of critical consciousness within researchers and practitioners (Mcilveen
2008, 6).
Can we consider this space, within this work, as a critical space?
Hoping that this work be a step forward in creating the Romani critical space out of foundation
on circumstances and condition which is built in desparate betweeness, understanding through
self-representativness will bring us and our knowledge closer. Mcilveen notes:

Perhaps story is the soul of empathy — genuine understanding, a shared humanity that
reaches across, touches; and in feeling with the other, we become our own self — the
human intertextuality of existence (Mcilveen 2008, 7).

105
CHAPTER IV – CRITICAL TRANSLATION ANALYSES OF ROMANI POETRY

As mentioned in the methodology chapter, versions in this work are labelled as

AL1/AL2/AL3/AL4 as author languages i.e. the original version AL1 and the self-translated
versions AL2/AL3/AL4, while NAL1/NAL2/NAL3/NAL4 as non-author language versions i.e.
my English translation of AL1/AL2/AL3/AL4 versions aimed at English-language readers in
order to enable them to grasp the subject matter and poetic form.
In this work, the poets’ use of language reflects the challenges that accompany a writer
when language is not yet standardized, and furthermore how writers can cope with ambiguities
seemingly inherent in the Romani language by self-translating into the majority society
languages. These kinds of challenges must be taken into account when reading, interpreting, and
critiquing Romani writers’ work. It is the first level for determining whether or not the Romani
writers’ their respective languages is either a reflection of multilingual linguistic realities and
non-standardized dialects or a specific literary strategy that ‘plays’ with the multilingual
language and dialect options that are open to the writer, or perhaps even a mixture of both. The
Romani writers have recourses and they exploit the actual linguistic conditions of the language in
their writing and self-translation, analysis and self-analysis, reflexivity and self-reflexivity, at the
place where they meet in their dialogues and monologues, in a search for knowledge and self-
knowledge at the same time creating own literary critics.
In my work I will analyse poems by Romani authors who have many things in common:
they write in Romani čhib and self-translate, they are from the region of former Yugoslavia, they
are/were working for radio and TV programmes in Romani čhib, and left their homes because of
war: Ruždija Ruso Sejdović, Mehmed Meho Saćip, Nedjo Osman, and Hedina Tahirović-
Sijerčić.

106
4.1 RUŽDIJA RUSO SEJDOVIĆ

a. Biographical information and literary production

Ruždija Ruso Sejdović is originally from Montenegro. He was born in 1966 in a Romani
community in Ubli near Titograd (known today as Podgorica). Now living and working in
Cologne, Germany, he writes poetry, short prose and drama in both Romani and Serbian. In
addition to his activities as a writer, he works as a translator from and into the Romani and
Serbian languages. In 2015 and 2016 his poems were prized at the International Competition for
the best poetry in the region of former Yugoslavia.112 While still a student in high school in
Belgrade, he studied art and design as extracurricular courses. After completing high school he
was an intern in the Navy on the island of Vis in Croatia. In 1987 he left Yugoslavia for Italy
where, as scholarship recipient at a translation foundation, he worked on translating the Bible into
the Romani language.
Many of Sejdović’s first works (literary writings and translations) were published in
diverse journals throughout Yugoslavia. From 1981 to 1989, these areas were located principally
in Cetinje and Osijek, where the following publications emerged:

• Omladinski Pokret (Cetinje: 1981, 1983, 1985) [Youth Movement]113

• Krlo e Romengo- Glas Roma (1983) [The Voice of Roma]
• Khamutno dive (1987) [Sunny Day]
• Književna revija (Osijek: 1989) [Literary Review]

From 1982-1983 he was member of the Romani radio program Ašunen Rromalen!114
(broadcast from Studio B in Belgrade) working as an editor for the column “Poetry Corner”. The

112
Journal Avlija, Rožaje 2015, Poem: Svedok [Witness] https://www.avlija.me/poezija/ruzdija-ruso-sejdovic-
svedok-druga-nagrada-casopisa-avlija-za-najbolju-pjesmu-regionu-za-2014-godinu (Retreived 11.2016) Journal
Avlija, Rožaje 2016, Poem: Sweet, Bitter, Love and kučka jagnjad [Sweet, Bitter and Love and bitch labms]
https://www.cdm.me/kultura/casopis-avlija-nagradio-najbolje-pjesme-i-price/?page=0%2C2 (Retreived 10. 2017)
113
My translations into English of the titles are included in brackets throughout this chapter.
114
The bilingual Serbian / Romani radio program Ašunen Rromalen! was initiated in 1981 and produced at Studio B
in Belgrade. Content was provided in collaboration with Behljulj Beki Galjuš, Aliriza Aguši, and Orhan Galjuš, and
edited by Dragoljub Acković. The program was delivered in the ‘mosaic’ format, and included such columns as
news, culture, sports, interviews, language courses, poetry corner, children’s matters, etc. It is important to note that
this program followed an earlier model produced in Tetovo (Macedonia) edited by Remzi Mersimi. Other Romani
radio programs elsewhere would follow the same model, i.e. in Gnjilane (Kosovo) in 1983 edited by Mehmed-Meho
Saćip, in Priština (Kosovo) in 1986 edited by Ali Krasnići, in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Hercegovina) in 1986 edited by
Hedina Tahirović Sijerčić, and in Prizren (Kosovo) in 1986 edited by Kujtim Pačaku. See also the bilingual
publication AshunenRomalen/ Listen People by Dragoljub Acković (translation from Serbian by Vesna Alnšpiler),

107
chief-editor of the program was Dragoljub Acković. Sejdović was also a member of the
Montenegrin artistic association from 1985, and received third prize for his poem at the festival
of young poets (published in the collection Majska rukovanja) in Titograd (Podgorica) in 1986.
Various texts authored by Sejdović were selected for inclusion in collective works and
anthologies published in Titograd/Podgorica and Osijek from 1986-1989, and in Italy, France,
Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia after the break-up of Yugoslavia.

• Majska rukovanja (Titograd-Podgorica:1986) [poetry collection]

• Romani fonetika thaj lekhipa/Fonetika i pravopis romskog jezika by Marcel
Courtiade (Titograd-Podgorica: 1986) [Romani Phonetics and Writing
Rules]
• Novije pjesništvo u Crnoj Gori (Osijek: 1989) [New Montenegrin Poetry]
• Zingari ieri e oggi- La storia, la cultura, la letteratura, Rom Centro Studi
Zingari, 1993 [Roma Yesterday and Today]
• Romani Poezija - Romska poezija (Niš: 1999) [Romani Poetry]
• Anthologie Critique des Auteurs Dramatiques Europeens (1945-2000) by
Michel Corvin (Editions Theatrales, 2007) [Critical Anthology of European
Dramatists (1945-2000)]
• Gradske priče (Beograd: 2010) [City Stories]
• Antologija romske poezije (Sarajevo: Sarajevske sveske 39/40, 2012)
[Anthology of Romani Poetry]
• Antologija e Rromane poezijaći/Antologija romske poezije (Zagreb:
Romska udruga romski putevi, 2012) [Anthology of Romani Poetry]

In 1988, the publication of his poetry book Svjetlost u ponoć – E jak an-e jrat [Light at
Midnight] (Titograd/Podgorica) in bilingual edition earned the distinction of being the first work
published in Romani and Serbocroatian in Montenegro. In 2012, a second edition of the book
was published in Romani and Serbian.
In Germany (Köln), Sejdović would launch a multilingual journal in Romani, German and
Serbian called Romano lil – Romablatt [Romani Newspaper], for which he was member of the

published by Rrominterpress, Radio B92 in Belgrade in 1996. (A reminder that not all the editors of these programs
were available to reply to questions on the Romani programs they used to work for.)

108
editorial board from 1989 to 1991. Likewise in Köln he would found a small literary group called
Jekh Čhib [One Language] in 1993/1994, and the literary group Romano Pero [Romani Quill] in
1998 along with Steva Stojko, Hanci Briher and Aladin-Marko Sejdić. With Stojko, Briher and
Sejdić, he would co-author the poetry book Kali čirikli – Der Schwarze Vogel [Black Bird]
(Köln: 1998).
The journal Romano Nevipe [Romani News] (1997) and other journals served as venues
for publishing many of his works, including those published in German:

• Kali čirikli – Der schwarze Vogel [Black Bird]

• Skizzen meiner Seins – Me trajohke draba [Sketches of my Being]
• Namenlos – Bi anavehko [Nameless]
• Märchen – Duj phral thaj o thagar [Legends: Two Brothers and a King]
• Roma Mutter – Romani dej [Romani Mother]
• Eine glückliche Quitte – E baxtali dunja [Lucky Quince]
• Ein Rom und drei Städte – Jekh Rrom, trin forujra [One Rom and Three
Cities]

His poems and stories have also been published in Sarajevo in the journal Sic! – časopis
za po-etička istraživanja i djelovanja [Journal for po-ethical research and action]115.
In a like manner but to a lesser extent, Sejdović has been active in the domain of drama
and theatre, co-authoring two plays with Nedjo Osman, actor and poet from Macedonia. The first
play –originally written in Serbocroatian and Romani—was entitled Jerma posle smrti/Jerma
nach dem Tod [Jerma After Death]. It was performed in Romani and in German at the Theater
Freie Kammerspielle in 1997 by the Romani theatre troupe Exit.The production was directed by
Nedjo Osman. The second drama –Kosovo Karussell—is a tragicomedy which was co-authored
in Serbian and Romani with the Romani Serbian poet Jovan Nikolić in 1999. Co-produced with
the Ruhrfestspielen Recklinghausen and Expo 2000 in Hannover, Germany, it was performed by
the Romani theatre troupe Phralipe of Mülheim a.d. Ruhr, Germany under the direction of Rahim
Burhan with the title Kosovo mon amour. The play has been translated into English and into
French. Extracts of the French translation (Kosovaqo karuseli/ Kosovo mon amour) by Marcel

115
My translation. The journal’s website can be consulted here: http://www.sic.ba/. The word “po-ethical” was
created to refer to an ethics of poetry.

109
Courthiade were published by the Cahier de la Maison Antoine-Vitez De l'Adriatique à la mer
Noire, and read both at the Petit Odéon Théâtre de l'Europe and Cité internationale universitaire
de Paris, in 2001 and 2002 respectively.
Sejdović’s latest work includes a bilingual collection of short stories in prose in both
Romani and Montenegrin titled Eremit (Podgorica, Montenegro: 2011). His Eremit was
translated in German by Melitta Depner (Berlin, Germany: 2017). He has also authored and
translated poems and stories which have been published in the journal KOD – journal for culture,
literature and science (Centar za očuvanje i razvoj kulture manjina Crne Gore, or CEKUM)116,
established in 2011 and publishing work in Serbian, Romani, Albanian, and Croatian117:

• tale Lord Bajron thaj e kajve/Bajron i kotlovi [Lord Byron and Cauldrons]
(2011) in Romani and Serbian, with translation into Albanian by Anton
Gojçaj
• tale Pripovest: Oko pradedovo [Tale: Grandfather’s Eye] (Nov 2012) in
Serbian
• story Daleko bilo [God forbid!] (Apr 2013) in Serbian
• translation from Serbian into Romani of the short story Demko authored
by Ćamil Sijarić (Aug 2013)
• translation from Serbian into Romani of some poetry excerpts authored by
Mladen Lompar (Mar 2014)
• translation from Romani into Serbian of the poem Čija sramota [Whose
Shame] authored by Selam Pato118
• translation from Serbian into Romani of the prose Životna uloga [Life
Role] by Zuvdija Hodžić (2016, 57-62)

Two of Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović’s poems were chosen for analysis: “Phiripe – Putovanja
[Traveling]” (Ruždija-Ruso 1988), and “Autoportreti – Autoportret [Self-Portrait]” (Ruždija-
Ruso 2012). As noted in my previous chapter, language names and politics are interwoven within

116
Center for Protection and Development of Minority Cultures in Montenegro – my translation.
117
Information found by searching for “Sejdović, Ruždija-Ruso” on http://vbcg.vbcg.me/, but the link does not seem
to work anymore (originally http://vbcg.vbcg.me/scripts/cobiss?ukaz=DISP&id=1033445230760812&rec=-
19031056&sid=0&fmt=11).
118
References for publications 2012-2014 are not yet provided in online catalogues. Publication from 2011 consulted
at http://www.nbcg-digitalnabibliografija.me/bibliografija_tekuca/clanci_2012/zapisi133.html#3960.Information
provided by author in email correspondence in the period from 2014 - 2017.

110
historical events in Yugoslavia. Serbocroatian is used here to refer to the language as it was
denominated at the time of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1945 to 1992. It is
still referred to as such by some writers of the older generation. Since 1992, the languages that
once constituted Serbocroatian have been reconceptualised as separate languages along national
lines, i.e. Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin. Publications prior to this date would have
used the term Serbocroatian, and will be noted here as such.

b. Analyses of Poem “Phiripe – Putovanja”

The first poem, written in 1988, was published in its original Gurbeti Romani119 alongside the
poet’s self-translation in Serbocroatian. The poem was included in Svjetlost u Ponoć -E jak an-e
jrat, the first book of poetry published by Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović. The final version of English
translation (NAL3) has relied on both, on the Romani (AL1) and Serbocroatian (AL2) versions.

Phiripe Putovanja Travelling

Gurbeti Romani (AL1) Serbocroatian (AL2) English (NAL3)
1.Zurarrdam amare zeja po bršind/ 1.Kalili smo leđa na kiši/ 1.We forged our backs on the
thaj xalam/ i pojeli/ rain and ate
šel metre drom./ stotinu metara puta./ hundreds of meters of road.
Pe amari sinija/ Na našoj se sofri nađe/ On our dining table there are
maladol e jag,/ i oganj/ both a flame
e gili./ i pjesma./ and a song.
O čhavro maladol.// Dijete se nađe.// A child can be found.

2.Tala o nango del/ 2.Under a clear sky we

Irisavah/ 2.Pod vedrim se nebom/ return
maškar e manuša.// vraćamo/ among people.
među ljude.//
3.Pe sinija ačhile/ 3.On our dining table remained

119
In my personal correspondence with him, the author Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović refers to the Romani dialect he used
as the “Xoraxano dialect as classified by Rade Uhlik”. Please see my chapter on the Romani language. Also, “Gurbet
Romani belongs to the Vlax dialect group, more specifically the Southern Vlax group. Gurbet-type varieties are
mostly spoken in the southwest of the Balkans (The Republic of Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Macedonia, Albania). Names also used to refer to this dialect are Džambazi (mostly for Gurbet varieties in
Macedonia) and Das.” (Anon. “Romani Dialects” on the ROMLEX website)

111
 amare jakha/ 3.Na sofri nam ostaše/ both our eyes
thaj amari čhib.// i oči/ and our language.
i jezik.//

The English translation has relied on the Romani and Serbocroatian version.

Version AL1 (Gurbeti Romani)

Phiripe Setting forth
Gurbeti Romani (AL1) English (NAL1)
1.Zurarrdam amare zeja po bršind/ 1.We made stronger our backs on the rain/
thaj xalam/ and we ate/
šel metre drom./ hundred meters of road./
Pe amari sinija/ On our low round dining table/
maladol e jag,/ is to be met fire,/
e gili./ song./
O čhavro maladol.// Child is to be met.//

2.Tala o nango del/ 2.Under naked sky/

irisavah/ we return/
maškar e manuša.// between people.//

3.Pe sinija ačhile/ 3.On low round dining table stayed/

amare jakha/ our eyes/
thaj amari čhib.// and our language (tongue).//

The English literal translation has relied on the Romani version.

This first poem was published in 1988. The Romani language (AL1) used in the poem is
understandable in its clear Gurbeti dialect. The Latin-based orthography with diacritics (for
example, č, š, ž, etc.) used in the poem is one commonly used in the Western Balkan region and
by the Western Balkan Roma writers and readers who have migrated to countries outside the

112
Balkans. The lexicon and semantics of the words in the poem are comprehensible not only for
Gurbeti readers but also for readers of mutually intelligible Romani dialects such as Arli,
Kalderaš, and Lovari (see Chapter II on Romani language).
In this case, its translation into Serbocroatian and English does not imply any changes in
terms of syntax. Thus, for example, Romani noun phrases or clauses are directly translated into
these two langauges, without a need to change the type of construction. In the same way, no
changes of Romani parts of speech occurred in their translation into Serbocroatian and English.
The poet uses the language in a very clear and ‘clean’ way, with his Romani expression
full of symbolism. The symbolism is created around specific language elements: for example
noun, sinija, which means a low, round dining table, and nango del, which literally means ‘naked
sky’. These two words symbolize family and pleasure symbiotically, and a clear sky with no
stars, clouds, moon, or sun. While a first reading of the poem initially can yield an interpretation
that reflects a romantic view of the Romani way of life, there are actually multiple interpretations
and analyses which can be generated on successive readings. The multiplicity of ideas and
meanings is made possible by the ‘properties’ of the Romani language and the structuring of the
words in the form of a poem, i.e. in three stanzas. The poem is also characterized by multiple
visual images that are constructed after the reading of each sentence.
The first stanza speaks about the Romani history of movement, about traveling through
time and being on the road. The clause zurarrdam amare zeja po bršind indirectly mean to be
toughened or strengthened by blows and suffering, with the direct, literal meaning read as ‘we
strengthened our backs on the rain’. Personification is also used. The verb phrases thaj xalam šel
metre drom literally mean that they ‘ate hundreds of meters of road’, which functions
metaphorically to indirectly mean that they traveled a lot. The words Pe amari sinija maladol e
jag, e gili are significant. The phrase connotes that despite a very hard life, the [extended] family
used to feel united, in a space with their own fire [and hearth] chosen by themselves, united in
song bound to love. They express a fervent desire for self-preservation, a wish to continue from
generation to generation, recognizable and palpable through use of the words O čhavro maladol.
The second stanza continues to make use of metaphor and symbolic expression, notably
in the clause Tala o nango del/ irisavah/maškar e manuša. A direct, literal translation yields
‘under the naked sky/ we came back/ among people’. The indirect meaning refers to the halting
of the life of travelling, and having to come back to live in the same place as before, among

113
people. However, although they are once again among people, in society, they are really without
anything. They have been emptied, devoided...
Finally, in the third stanza the poet once again uses personification and metaphor. The
direct, literal meaning of the clause Pe sinija ačhile amare jakha thaj amari čhib denotes that
eyes and language have been left on the sinija (‘low, dining table’). Whereas the use of sinija in
the stanza once evoked familiar warmth, it now indirectly connotes feelings of sadness due to the
current situation. They do not feel as among people, and there is no love or song. They have only
a memory of the previous sinija. In times past, their happiness and love were expressed with open
eyes and with the languages they spoke, all of which has now been replaced with sad nostalgia.
It is very important to read the poet’s ‘original’ and ‘translation’, his first and second
language versions in the act of self-translation. The two versions complement each other and
together confer a more complete meaning to the poem. Meaning is constructed between the
readings of the two language versions, one against the other, both of which together reflect –
mostly through symbolism – what the poet is trying to convey.

Version AL2 (Serbocroatian)

Putovanja Travelling
Serbocroatian (AL2) English (NAL2)
1.Kalili smo leđa na kiši/ 1.We forged our backs on the rain/
i pojeli/ and ate/
stotinu metara puta./ hundreds meters of road./
Na našoj se sofri nađe/ On our low round table with food on is to
i oganj/ be found/
i pjesma./ and fire/
Dijete se nađe.// and song./
Child is to be found.//
2.Pod vedrim se nebom/
vraćamo/ 2.Under clear sky we/
među ljude.// came back/
among people.//
3.Na sofri nam ostaše/
i oči/ 3.On our low round table with food on
i jezik.// stayed/
our eyes/
and language (tongue).//
The English literal translation has relied on the Serbocroatian version.

114
 The translation language (AL2) for this poem is Serbocroatian. As in the AL1 (‘source’)
text, the AL2 (‘target’) text likewise generates multiple meanings and ideas, organized through
visual pictures and symbols. The same poet re-creates the Romani symbolism of the AL1 poem
through words common and familiar to him in the language he was educated in, i.e.
Serbocroatian. The strategy would seem to function on two levels: firstly, it reflects the
Serbocroatian reality experienced by the poet (through the language learned at school and used in
the majority society in which he lived/s) and secondly, it expresses a desire to maintain a
connection with his Romani past, by his choice to write in Romani.
The manner in which the poet chooses to express his double reality through self-
translation cannot be evaluated according to the ‘conventional’ criteria used to assess quality
between source and target language texts. In this case, creativity and linguistic mastery come into
play in different ways. The writing and self-translating strategies used should be analyzed as
choices the poet has made (at times more deliberately than others), and not necessarily in terms of
whether the second version is a ‘correct translation’ of the first. Reading the two versions written
and translated in relation to each other implies a different set of evaluative criteria for the critic
and translator into a third or fourth language. In the case of this poem, it is possible to see some
of this‘relationing’reflected in the transfer of sinija to sofra. Sinija as the low, wooden, round
table and without food i.e. empty, and all its associated connotations has been converted to one of
the usual daily dining table120 with food on it. Many Roma and non-Roma in the Balkans 121
do
use the two words as synonyms. But they evoke different kinds of imagery and feelings in the
context of the poem, and both words reflect aspects of the the poet’s lifestyles reality in which
both cultures and languages meet.
There is obvious commonlity and comfort of a shared language, much like the shared
meal and the locus of a table as a protected gathering place, as shared cultural space. Poet as self-
translator, according to his knowledge of original text, allowed himself shifts in the translation
which might not be acceptable by other translators, and produced “a complementary literary text

120
Although the sofreh table may be known in English to some readers in the context of more elaborate events (such
as Persian weddings), ‘sofra’ here is used to connote a normal dining table laid out with food.
121
[T]he Oriental aspects of cultural and linguistic heritage, as revealed mainly in the large number of Turkisms
(many of these originally deriving from Arabic or Persian). (Bugarski 2012, 231)

115
which does not simply echo the original, but has its own echo and effect in the target language and
culture” (Attar 2005, 139).
The last stanza could in fact be interpreted a couple of ways. On the one hand, reading in
conjunction with the same stanza in Romani yields a feeling that the gaze remains fixed on the
table with the impossibility of eating. Hunger remains. On the other hand, a reading of the poem
solely in Serbocroatian could sidestep this symbolic meaning (including the transfer from sinija
to sofra), and readers could interpret that the people are simply waiting to eat. The implied
meanings associated with the word jezik [language] would not be understood because used as
homonym; as language and as tongue - a part of body.122 The poet would hope that readers of the
poem would try to seek out its meaning in relation to the rest of the poem. His intention and
willingness to open a dialog with non-Roma and move in the direction of trying to understand
Roma rather than the other way around.
When asked if he would be willing to provide a self-analysis of his poem and self-
translation, Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović as also other poets involved in this work, agreed to do so. The
author’s original responses are provided in full below. He writes in a multilingual mix of
Serbocroatian, Serbian and Montenegrin, alongside his native Romani Gurbeti dialect. The
English translation is mine.

Version AL1 and AL2 (Poet’s own self-analysis of poem “Phiripe – Putovanja”)
Date: 20.05.2015. Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović
Pisajući ovu pjesmu "adresara" sam While writing this “address book” poem, I
zamišljao većinski narod, koji je u to imagined majority society people who then
vrijeme pa i danas pun predrasuda o and now still have plenty of prejudice
Romima, o narodu kojemu pripadam. Zato against Roma, against the people to whom I
sam je i preveo na tadašnjem belong. This is why I translated the poems
srpskohrvatskom jeziku da bih poetičnost into Serbocroatian of that tim, just to
tajanstvenog naroda kojemu pripadam discover the poetic expression I have for
otkrio, i da bih ponudio znatiželju kod them, the mysterious people I belong to. I
većinskog naroda za stvarnim osećanjima offer the poems to them [majority society]
Roma. this way so that they can satisfy their

122
In Romani word čhib has the same meanings as in Serbocroatian word jezik.

116
 curiosity for the real feelings of Roma.
Romi su prema ovu [sic] postmodernistički In the beginning Roma people reacted with
napisanu poeziju u početku sa nevjericom disbelief123 to this ‘postmodern’ poetry, but
reagovali, ali poslije mojih brojnih i after numerious and detailed explanations
iscrpnih objašnjenja shvatili su da se radi o they realized that these feelings they carry
objašnjenju osjećanja koje i oni sami nose within themselves too. The easiest way has
sa sobom, ali koje najviše i najlakše znaju always been to express them through song.
kroz pjevanje da iskažu. Ja kao pjesnik As a poet of my verses, I have never had
mojih stihova, nijesam imao nikakvih any problems translating into Serbo-
problema da ih prevedem na Croation because I know both languages
srpskohrvatskom jeziku zato što vrlo dobro [Romani and Serbo-Croatian] very well.
obadva jezika poznajem.
Mogu reći da su zbog toga da su obadvije For this reason I can say that both versions
verzije zapravo dva pjevanja na dva jezika in this poem are two interpretations. They
sa istom tematikom i svojim ličnim have the same thematics and personal
atributima pjesničke jačine, a u spomenutim attributes of poetic strength. In these verses
stihovima na obadva jezika da se osjetiti in both languages one feels the strength of
jačina metaforičnosti. the metaphors.

123
Some groups of Roma, including the one the poet’s family belongs to, do not believe in the written word or in
Roma who write.

117
 Lično smatram da je nebitno porijeklo I personally think that the origin of the
jednog prevodioca, ali je vrlo bitno translator is irrelevant. However, it is very
poznavanje obadva jezika sa kojima radi, i important to understand the two languages
poznavanje osobenost poetike ako se o one is working in, and to have knowledge
poeziji radi. Prevodjenje poezije nije isto of poetic peculiarities as well. Translating
što i prevodjenje proznog teksta, poezija poetry is not the same as translating prose
traži mnogo dublje analize metaforičnih i text; poetry seeks much deeper analysis of
drugih poetskih elemenata, jezičke sintakse, metaphoric and other poetic elements and
otuda imamo slučaj da sam mnoge svoje language syntax. And so many of my
stihove zapravo prepevao radi očuvanja poems I have translated and rendered in
petske jačine u prevodu. another version by myself, because of the
need to preserve the poetic force in the
translation.

Romani people are historically faced with constant prejudices against, and the way against
themselves. Sejdović sees the way to overcome it and to fight in using the language of majority,
Serbocroatian, through his self-translation. Self-representing his self-translation, he is self-
conscious about his knowledge of the Serbocroatian language. Living in the same space with
many cultures where most cultural elements are shared between all people, he expects the
majority society to discover his poetic expression and understand real feelings of Roma.
However, understanding of reality and truth is different although is “constructed and shaped
through interaction between people and the environment they live” (Silverman 2000) and
influenced by the socio-cultural background. He hopes for a change, for togetherness. Even
though he came closer using their majority language, he does not feel and does not see the
change. His self-perception of his poem is the poem of two interpretations; one has an impact on
Romani readers and the other on the non-Romani. He is in discurse with himself and claims that
he rather translates poems by himself to better preserve the poetic force in translation, even
though he thinks that the translator’s originality is not important. Authors’ reflections and
thoughts give us important information about his personal, individual motifs and the way of
choosing how to cross the linguistic border. His choice is in self-translation as a possible
foundation for the future critics which is missing.

118
 c. Analyses of Poem “Autoportreti – Autoportret”
The second poem is written in Romani and self-translated into Serbian. The poem was
included in the republished book of poetry Svjetlost u Ponoć/E jak an-e jrat, which includes new
creations along with some of the poems published in the first book.

Autoportreti Autoportret Self-Portrait

Mix Romani dialects (AL1) Serbian (AL2) English (NAL3)
1.Paso 1.Otisak 1.Imprint
me ʒuvdimasqo, mog života, of my life,
fiza me isanosqi. konturamoje pojave. contour of my appearance.
Izravne vastesa kerdo Nesigurnom rukom With unsure hand stretched
biramime tasvir, razvučen is the
kalǎrrdi neuramljen crtež, unframed drawing,
ćarrli strafin devlesqi, potamnjela darkened
xoxavno kolorit! usahla vedrina neba dried clarity of the sky
lažni kolorit! false colour!
2.An-o maśkar ćhelavni
ćakra, 2.U sredini treperava čakra, 2.In the middle a trembling
izravni aura dukhavnesqi. drhtava aura paćenika. chakra,
the trembling aura of the
3.Varindě o vast bilal 3.Negde se stapa ruka suffering one.
bizorale mosta kerel, nemoćni lik stvara,
kleja ćhamenqe, nakite obrazu, 3.Somewhere a hand
me kokalenge umblavel, kostima svojim kači, merges
xale narie trujarel... izlizane djelove to create a powerless
izobličava... likeness,
4.Drabarrno than, hangs jewels to the cheek,
haćaripe 4.Zagrižen prostor, with its bones ,
artistikane bireslimasqo predosjećanje disfigures shabby pieces.
thaj phukavipe e umjetnikove naivnosti
palalimasqo. i nevjerstvo pozadine. 4.Bitten space,

119
 intuition
5.Darano ʒeno, 5.Uplašena pojava, of artist’s naivete
manuś124, čovjek, and disloyality of the
bipinʒarrde godǎqo... stanje nepoznate svijesti... background.

5.Scared appearance,
Human being
state of unknown
consciousness…
The English translation has relied on the Romani and Serbian versions.

Version AL1 (Mix Romani Dialects)

Autoportreti Self-Portrait
Mix Romani dialects (AL1) English (NAL1)
1.Paso 1.Trace
me ʒuvdimasqo, of my life,
fiza me isanosqi. contour of my being.
Izravne vastesa kerdo With straighten hand done
biramime tasvir, without frame drawing,
kalǎrrdi black
ćarrli strafin devlesqi, dry Goddess shine
xoxavno kolorit! false colour!

2.An-o maśkar ćhelavni ćakra, 2.In the middle dancing chakra,

izravni aura dukhavnesqi. straighten aura of the sad person.

3.Varindě o vast bilal 3.Somewhere a hand merges

bizorale mosta kerel, powerless likeness makes,
kleja ćhamenqe, jewels to the cheek,

124
For the sake of translation I would mention that the meaning of the word manuš (man) in Romani and čovjek in
Serbian is rendered as“human being” in English.

120
me kokalenge umblavel, my bones hangs,
xale narie trujarel... eaten edges wraps...

4.Drabarrno than, 4.Bewitched place, (healing place)

haćaripe understanding (feeling)
artistikane bireslimasqo failure of artist
thaj phukavipe e palalimasqo. and slander of these who are in the
background.
5.Darano ʒeno,
manuś, 5.Scared person,
bipinʒarrde godǎqo... man,
unknown thought (of unknown thought)...

The English literal translation has relied on the Romani version.

Use of the Romani language in the poem Autoportreti / Autoportret published in 2012
differs notably from its use in the earlier poem Phiravipe/Putovanja published in 1988. The
words are presented in a mixture of dialects. There are old words used by specific Gurbeti groups
in Montenegro which other Gurbeti groups (such as my Bosnian group) would not know and not
understand without translation. The use of words and their semantics are also rendered more
difficult for comprehension because of the orthography used. In the first poem the poet used the
system of orthography most frequently used in the region of the former Yugoslavia, and which
continues to be used because of the Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, and Montenegrin languages. In
the second poem, the poet opts for the inter-dialectal meta-phonological unification system of
orthography created by the team led by Marcel Courthiade.125
The choice of which system of orthography and alphabet to use when writing in Romani
is always linked to individual attitudes and ideas about language and language politics. Often, it
has political implications. When asked about the reason for using this model for his poem,
Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović replied:

125
See my chapter on Romani language. Prior to the widespread use of computers and internet, Romani linguistics
was largely the domain of a few specialized linguists. In 1990, the International Romani Union [IRU] adopted use of
Courthiade’s model as the “official alphabet”. (Matras 2004, 252).

121
 We Roma from the Balkans learned to use extensively the orthography based on
Serbocroatian, but the use and distribution is not uniform due to the divergence in
dialects. When we use this [orthography], we are doing a great injustice to the
other Roma groups such as Lovari or Kalderaš from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus,
Hungary, Romania...126

The poem uses both the Gurbeti and Arli Romani dialects. It mixes within the poem some
old Romani words used by members of certain groups but which are not used by others in their
speech. Examples of these words are fiza and isanoski in the first stanza, and varindĕ, mosta, and
narie in the third stanza. In these instances, understanding the poem without the poet’s self-
translation in Serbian would be difficult, if not impossible, even for those whose knowledge of
Romani, and its diverse dialects and orthography systems is very good. Romani dialect
differences are one reason why Romani authors may feel compelled to self-translate when or
after writing their poems in Romani. When asked for more information about the origin of these
particular Romani words in the poem, Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović replied that the words are still in
use by some Romani groups in Montenegro127, and he sent a description128 of them and their
meanings:
Translated in the poem as:
Romani Serbian English
fiza linija, kontura lines, contours
varindě negde somewhere
nariă ivica shabby pieces
mosta129 lik likeness

Translation of words according to its semantic equivalence:

126
My translation. Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović, email correspondence on 30.07.2014.
127
Some of these groups are traditionally Čergaši (non-settled, nomadic) and only recently settled. Also, some groups
(Bosnian Čergaši or Čergari, Serbian Kalderaši and Čergari) are still referred to by this name, due to family or group
history, even though they may have been settled for some time. According to Thomas Acton, Professor of Romani
Studies at the University of Greenwich, since 1989 these groups live in U.K. and they identify themselves as
“Bosnian Chergashe”. See Acton 2008, 6-7. Furthermore, Horton and Grayson (2008) stated that “Bosnian and
Serbian Gypsies (Serbaya Kalderash) found themselves in the U.K. in 1992, traveling and selling carpets. The wars
in the former Yugoslavia meant that family members joined them.”
128
Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović, email correspondence on 20.12.2014.
129
Mosta is used by Roma in Kosovo, in Prizren. Misura, a synonym, is also used in the Lovari dialect.

122
 Romani Serbian English
fiza linija, kontura lines, contours
varindě negde somewhere
nariă ivica edge
mosta130 lik face

Future work in Romani translation would benefit from incorporation of these words and
definitions in a comprehensive dictionary that could be used by writers and translators.
In this poem, there are two instances of rhyme being used. The first is found in the third
stanza of the Romani language version: me kolalenge umblavel, xale narie trujarel. Here the poet
rhymes on the third person singular conjugation of the verbs: umblavel; trujarel. The second is
found in the fourth stanza of the Romani language version: artistikane bireslimasqo thaj
phukavipe e palalimasqo. In this instance the poet rhymes on the declination [genitive case] of
the noun [third person singular], i.e. palalimasqo and on the declination [genitive case] of the
adjective [modifying third person singular noun], i.e. bireslimasqo.
As in the case of the poem previously analyzed, this poem also makes use of
personification and metaphor. In the first stanza, for example, we find the noun phrase: Paso me
ʒuvdimasqo, self-translated into Serbian as Otisak mog života, whose literal translation into
English would be ‘Imprit of my life’. Here the poet works with the image of a body on which the
marks of life have been left. The word denotes a physical mark, but in reality connotes a mark
that functions at many levels of human existence: psychological, emotional, etc. A second
instance of the poet using personification and metaphor in the poem is found in the author’s
second language version (Serbian), i.e. his self-translation.
The Romani noun phrase Drabarno than, self-translated as Zagrižen prostor in Serbian
(‘bitten space’ in English), and the Romani phrase thaj phukavipe e palalimasqo, self-translated
as i nevjerstvo pozadine in Serbian (‘disloyality in the background’ in English) refer in the
Romani poem to the social space in which the poet as a Rom lives. It is combined with the image
of a society which always appears to follow him and investigate what he does. The poet implies a
great sense of irony in juxtaposing the so-called equal freedom and free artistic life with the
background of disloyality and mistrust. The tone applied in the poem by the poet is one of feeling

130
Mosta is used by Roma in Kosovo, in Prizren. Misura, a synonym, is also used in the Lovari dialect.

123
ill-at-ease, and not well. He is on edge and in fear, given the potential disloyalty that lurks in the
background. He is not sure how others can react. Fear pervades his mind, leading him to a
depression which invades his being. Dissatisfaction with his own life awakens the poet as artist,
his ‘second being’, and he watches himself in the mirror. He observes his own life with
disappointment and a sense of irony, all of which is embodied in the self-portrait. He tries to
beautify himself, but it is impossible. Because of his fear (‘scared appearance’), his hand is
unsure and unsteady. The colour emerges false, and his face appears weak and his cheekbones
distorted, against a backdrop of ‘bitten space’ and background of disloyalty. His naivety as artist
transports him to this frightened appearance, creating a state of confusion and depression.
Just like with the previous poem, no lexical or syntactic changes occurred in the
translation process, except when it comes to the word order in one stanza, where, due to the
English rule according to which verb always precedes the object, a slight adaptation was made. It
is necessary to mention here that due to the cases in Serbian, word order is not as fixed as in
English, which means that an object may appear before the verb.
Although English syntax is different from Romani or Serbian, it is worth mentioning that
in poetry syntactic elements are not as diverse as in fiction, which enabled direct transfer of
contructions from one language to another.
A particular feature of Romani poetry is the verse yielding to multiple constructions of
different meanings and ideas, thus creating different visual imagery and symbolic networks in the
minds of readers. One reason for this may well be found in the language’s lack of extensive
literary use in poetry writing. Poets educated in the languages of the majority society they live in
will tend to gravitate towards the literary vocabulary of those languages. Less frequently used
Romani words can sometimes have multiple meanings attributed to them due to their lack of use
and poetic ‘play’. Poets may end up completing the meaning through the Romani word’s
‘counterpart’ in the other language. In that way, the penchant for creating meaning has varying
implications mostly for non-Romani readers with intention to cherish, spread and promote
understanding of Romani culture.

124
 Analysis of Version AL2 (Serbian)
Autoportret Self-Portrait
Serbian (AL2) English (NAL2)
1.Otisak 1.Trace
mog života, of my life,
kontura moje pojave. contour of my appearance.
Nesigurnom rukom razvučen With unsure hand stretched
neuramljen crtež, unframed drawing,
potamnjela darkened
usahla vedrina neba withered serenity of the sky
lažni kolorit! false colour!

2.U sredini treperava čakra, 2.In the middle flickering chakra,

drhtava aura paćenika. trembling aura of the wretch (pariah?).

3.Negde se stapa ruka 3.Somewhere merges a hand

nemoćni lik stvara, powerless image creates,
nakite obrazu, jewels to the cheek,
kostima svojim kači, with own bones hangs,
izlizane djelove izobličava... frayed pieces disfigures...

4.Zagrižen prostor, 4.Bitten space,

predosjećanje intuition
umjetnikove naivnosti of artist’s naivity
i nevjerstvo pozadine. and disloyality (betrayal) of background.

5.Uplašena pojava, 5.Scared appearance,

čovjek, man,
stanje nepoznate svijesti... condition of unknown consciousness...

The English literal translation has relied on the Serbian version.

125
 There are several interesting points to be made about the poet’s self-translation of this
poem into Serbian. Some relate to larger issues that potentially have ramifications for translators.
The first point worthy of note is the mix between Ekavian and Ikavian features of the
once unified Serbocroatian language. As summarized cogently by Ranko Bugarski (2012):

There are two major traditional divisions, the first being into three macrodialects,
named after the pronoun meaning ‘what’: Štokavian (što), Kajkavian (kaj) and
Čakavian (ča). […] The second division, mostly remaining on Štokavian ground, is
based on the reflex of the Proto-Slavic front vowel /ĕ/, called jat. In some dialects
this developed into /e/ (Ekavian […]); in others, into /ije/ (Ijekavian) […]; and in
yet others, into /i/ (Ikavian) […]. (p. 223)

The two dualities of Ekavian vs. Ijekavian pronunciation and of Cyrillic vs. Latin
[‘Roman’] script, while not clear-cut, figured as the most salient markers of
disunity within Serbocroatian. (p. 225)

The divisions are likewise expounded on in Ronelle Alexander (2006)131:

There are three major dialects […]. Indeed, if one follows the general linguistic
criterion of mutual intelligibility, these three dialects would qualify much more
readily as different languages than do standard Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian
(at least in their current state). The[y] […] are štokavian, čakavian and kajkavian.
[388]

The historical development of the old Slavic letter called jat’ is the source of the
single most readily perceptible pronunciation difference among štokavian
speakers […]. Through the course of the centuries, its pronunciation was altered
to different forms in different areas. Within the South Slavic regions, it developed
either in i, e, or a complex of je or ije. Speakers who pronounce it as i belong to
the ikavian dialect, while those who pronounce it as e belong to the ekavian
dialect. Those who pronounce it sometimes as je and sometimes as ije belong to a
dialect which is usually called ijekavian, though sometimes one hears the term
jekavian. [391]

[…][R]esidents of Belgrade and Novi Sad value ekavian pronunciation very

highly, since they associate it so closely with their own cultural and historic

131
Alexander also states: “[…] features which marked each of the three [Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian] as separate
from one another have taken on much greater significance: most differences that were once possible variants have
become the prescribed norm, and many features that once were perceived as local color are now strongly imbued
with national significance.” (2006)

126
 traditions. Residents of Sarajevo and other Bosnian cities value ijekavian
pronunciation very highly, for similar reasons. The strength of the emotional
identification with these two pronunciations became starkly evident during the
1990s when government officials attempted (with clearly nationalistic design) to
impose ekavian on an ijekavian-speaking population […]. [394]. Emotions
concerning ekavian and ijekavian have increased in intensity since the breakup of
Yugoslavia […] [395]132

In other words, regardless of whether or not Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović deliberately has a

strategy in mind with regard to choosing or alternating between use of Ikavian, Ekavian, or
Ijekavian (Jekavian) in his self-translation into Serbian, the fact is that the poem contains
manifestations of two types in particular: Ekavian (1), Ijekavian (5), and one instance of a hybrid
of both. In the third stanza of the Serbian AL2, the word Negde is clearly Ekavian. The word
djelove, however, appears as a ‘hybrid’ between Ekavian and Ijekavian. (It would be delove if
Ekavian and dijelove if Ijekavian.) The poet uses Ijekavian in the fourth stanza for predosjećanje,
umjetnikove, and nevjerstvo, and in the fifth stanza for čovjek and svijesti. Therefore, the
Ijekavian feature/dialect prevails in the poet’s self-translation.
When asked about the reason for mixing the two dialects (my assumption had been that
there was a mistake in rewriting or typing in Serbian when preparing the manuscript for
publishing, given that the publisher or author chose Serbian as the language for publication)133,
Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović responded that he consciously uses both Ekavian and Jekavian, but
considers the poem to be Serbian. Acknowledging that the question was interesting, he remarked
that linguistically speaking Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are at least more than
50% similar, and that he gladly uses both dialectal forms just because, as he said, “Poetry allows
this.” The reasoning for mixing the dialects can also be understood as a form of resistance to
exclusionist nationalists language policies and again, ironically be duty of the poet to put
language and its use into question.

132
Alexander likewise notes: “Although there are a number of regional ‘accents’, the most notable pronunciation
difference is also reproduced in the spelling. This difference concerns a frequently occurring sound which in the
‘ekavian’ pronunciation is spoken (and written) as e, but which in the ‘ijeckavian’ pronunciation is spoken (and
written) either as je or ije. Standard Bosnian and Croatian use only ijekavian pronunciation, while Serbian uses
ekavian predominantly but not exclusively: Montenegrins and Bosnian Serbs all use ijekavian, as do some speakers
in the southern and western parts of Serbia proper. […] Both these differences are of the ‘either-or’ sort. On any one
occasion, a person writes in either one alphabet or the other; and any one speaker uses either ekavian or ijekavian
pronunciation consistently.”
133
It would be interesting to conduct a study at some point to determine the language policies in place or practiced for
publications in each of the former Yugoslav countries – both with regard to original works and to translations.

127
 In this case, however, the poet did not create a rhyme scheme in the self-translation. The
two instances of rhyme in the Romani language version of the poem (umblavel/trujarel and
palalimasqo/bireslimasqo) were not able to be transferred into the Serbian language version.
Nevertheless, the poet did successfully transfer another, different, poetic functionality, by
reformulating (translation technique) a phrase imbibed with symbolic value – even though,
interestingly enough, the symbolism created another set of associations. In the fourth stanza of
AL2, for example, we find the noun phrase drabarno than (literally ‘enchanted space’) in
Romani being reformulated as zagrižen prostor (literally ‘bitten space’) in Serbian. The space
referred to takes on the connotation of having been bit into, like an apple. Even while the two
images are visually dissimilar, the two metaphors combined (AL1 and AL2) reveal the symbolic
meaning the poet wishes to convey. It expresses the bitterness of life, and is possible to feel only
when the two language versions are read as complementary to each other. The ‘source text’
(AL1) without the ‘target text’ (AL2) would not yield the some understanding. Nor would the
‘target text’do the same without the ‘source text’ to complement it. By self-translating drabarno
than as zagrižen prostor, the poet opens himself up to expanding the realm of possibilities for
creation, and can use two metaphorical images – not just one- to give full meaning to what he
wants to say. He does this by virtue of the elasticity the Romani language can offer him.
Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović’s poetry indirectly reflects meanings and ideas that are generated
through imagery. The imagery put forth invites us to construct myriad multiple images and
meanings of our own. His poetry is coloured with old Romani words which are symbols of the
wish to preserve the Romani language and identity. Through his use of symbols and metaphors
he evokes our senses and emotions. It is by reading his ‘source’ (AL1) text stereoscopically with
his ‘target’ self-translation (AL2) that we are able to create a complete meaning, and the
completeness of the poem.

Poet’s own self-analysis of the poem is followed by a comment.

Version AL1 and AL2 (Poet’s own self-analysis of poem “Autoportreti – Autoportret”)
Date: 29.05.2015. Ruždija Ruso Sejdović
Pored literature, nastojim i likovnim In addition to my literary writing, I try also
izražajem da odslikam trenutnu situaciju with my artistic expression to mirror the

128
zbivanja oko mene, a u tom arealu su current situation of what is happening around
svakako i moja sabraća Romi. Stihovi pod me, and in that space are definitely my
naslovom Autoportret nastali su kao potreba brothers the Roma. The verses titled Self-
za simbiozom dve težnje i žudnje mog portrait were created because of the need for
umjetničkog karaktera: likovnog i literarnog. symbiosis between the two aspirations and
Rezultat te težnje su stihovi koji daju upustvo desires of my artistic nature: painting and
za crtanje mog portreta. literary expression. The results are the verses
Konkretno stihovima "crtam" svoj duhovni that give instructions for drawing my portrait.
portret, koji je ipak samo jedan deo ljudske In particular, with these verses I ‘draw’ my
duhovnosti, zapravo univerzalna opomena da self-portrait. But the portrait is only one
je čovjek stanje nepoznate svijesti, bez obzira aspect of human spirituality, and reminds us
kojoj naciji pripada ili se pripadnikom oseća. that a human being does not know himself
fully, regardless of the nation he belongs to.
Otisak, Mark,
mog źivota, of my life,
kontura moje pojave. contour of my appearance.

Okvir ili kontura jedne osobe, po meni, čine The frame or contour of a person, in my
tragovi njegovog delovanja, ono šta čovek opinion, is a mark of his activity, of what a
čini i kako čini, uvek ostavlja trag, a to human being (man) is doing. What and how
uobličava i karakteriše jednu pojavu, he is doing always leaves a mark, which
shapes and characterizes one’s appearance,
Nesigurnom rukom razvučen With unsure hand stretched is the
neuramljen crtež, unframed drawing,

svakako, areal odakle potičem kao Rom ima Anyhow, the space from which I originate as
jednu konotaciju nesigurnosti, neizvesnosti, a Rom has a connotation of insecurity, of
neśto śto se teśko uklapa u konvencionalno uncertainty, of something difficult to fit into
ograničavanje. Nedostatak te karakteristike, a conventional framework. It is a feeling of
svakako je i nepripadnost okolini, ili barem not belonging to one’s surroundings, or at
osećaj nepripadnosti, otuda se osećam kao least the feeling of not belonging. So I feel as

129
neuramljen ali ipak crtež, nešto što treba ili if I am without a frame, still a drawing,
može da se nadogradi i dalje obradjuje, uči... something that should or could continue to be
built, processed further, still learned...
potamnjela darkened
usahla vedrina neba dried clarity of sky
laźni kolorit! false colour!

Dva antipoda jednog života, mog života kao Two antipodes of one’s life, my life as a
Roma, jeste subverzija konflikta unutraśnjeg Rom, is a subversion of the conflict between
i spoljaśnjeg svijeta. Za one koji me gledaju inner and outer worlds. For those who look at
spolja (većinsko stanovniśtvo) primarna je me from the outside (majority society), their
želja da primete neki kolorit, primary wish is to perceive some colour,
temperamentnost ili muzikalnost mog temperament or the musicality of my Romani
romskog života, sloboda naizgled, medjutim, life, my apparent freedom. However, inside
za mene iznutra, nośenog vetrovima progona me I am restricted, carried by the winds of
i diskriminacije, ograničenog, takav kolorit je persecution and discrimination, my colour as
nestvaran. Ovde saosećam sa kolektivitetom. they perceive it is not real to me. Here I
empathize with the collective.
U sredini treperava čakra, In the middle a trembling chakra
drhtava aura paćenika. The trembling aura of the one who suffers.

Mistika indijskog porijekla Roma, titra i dalje The mysticism of the Roma’s Indian origin
i do dan danas u njima, kao nepoznanica i flickers and continues to this day in them (in
tajna. To osećam u sebi, treperavost jedne Roma) as a mystery and secret. I feel it in
filozofije koja ne može da usahne, jer je myself, shimmering of a philosophy which
sastavni dio paćeništva. Fundament teološke cannot wither because it is an integral part of
definicije vjere zapravo je paćeništvo. Sve suffering. Fundamental to the theological
svetske koncesije patnju i mučeništvo definition of faith is, actually, suffering. All
usredsredjuju vjeri. Filozofija opstanka je world religions link faith to suffering and
paćeničko iskušenje. To odredjuje i auru martyrdom. The philosophy of survival is an
jednog bića, pa i mojeg... agonizing ordeal. It dictates the aura of being,

130
 and of my being…
Negde se stapa ruka Somewhere a hand merges
nemoćni lik stvara, to create a powerless likeness,
nakite obrazu, hangs jewels to the cheek,
kostima svojim kači, with its bones,
izlizane djelove izobličava... disfigures shabby pieces.

Vizuelna nadogradnja mog lika, uljepšavanje The visual upgrade of my face, beautification
i maskarada jednog izgleda koji ipak od and masquerade of one’s look which from the
izlizanosti ka izobličavanju teži... shabbiness towards distortion tends...
Zagrižen prostor, Bitten space,
predosjećanje intuition
umjetnikove naivnosti an artist’s naiveté
i nevjerstvo pozadine. and disloyality of the background.

Iz mog unutrašnjeg bića, zbog treperavosti Because of the chakra preserved within, out
sačuvane čakre, izbija znanje da je ipak of my inner being emerges knowledge from
prostor zagrižen oko mene, i taj predosećaj se the bitten space, an intuition of betrayal.
širi do nevjerstva. Vjera ili nevjera, poverenje Faith, lack of belief, trust or distrust, between
ili nepoverenje izmedju čovjeka i okoline, a human and his surroundings, between a
izmedju jednog Roma i okoline, zaista je Rom and the surroundings. They are really
literarna tema koja mene kao pisca veoma the literary topics that call me as a writer. I
proziva, i to se verujem da i u mojim očima believe it can be seen in my eyes and on my
primetiti i na mom licu, ipak ja sam samo... face, though I am just...
Uplašena pojava, Scared appearance,
čovjek, human
stanje nepoznate svijesti... state of unknown consciousness.

Strah je kod Roma sinonim trajanja, žive u For Roma, fear is synonymous with
strahu, umiru od straha... endurance. They live in fear, die in fear ...
I to je najveća nepoznanica, nešto što je And this is the biggest mystery, something

131
sastavni elemenat mene kao čovjeka, i moje that is an integral element of me as a man,
nepoznate svijesti. and my strange consciousness.

Through this self-analysis we see how poet’s poetic language reflects the language he uses
when writing, and vice versa. He expresses the wish that readers read him not just as a poet, but
also as a conduit for thinking differently about Roma and Romani poetry. Reflexivity in poet’s
work offers a critical approach to the social situation which is also created through his own
involvement and experience. His reality of seeking to understand the world in which he lives
develops his subjective meaning in which he creates his own way of expression. It is necessary
to highlight the powerful effect of languages which creates his multiple identities as a writer, poet
and painter. At the same time he feels deeply his belonging to the Romani nationality which is
not framed. Who is going to give a frame to his portrait? He is feeling at the same time as an
insider and an outsider in this society, but reality is that he rather lives with the own community.
The poet’s personal story written in a form of poem involves reflection. He speaks about
suffering, philosophy of survival, life in fear and death in fear as a fear of the past and fear of the
future and it produces painful moments. “It is both a historical and political process that places
people of color in control of their story” (Denzin, Lincoln and Smith 2008, 94). Sejdović’s story
in a poem is a “path/history” (Ibid.) of himself. Faith, belief, trust and distrust are also his literary
topics that lead him to writing.

132
4.2 MEHMED-MEHO SAĆIP

a. Biographical information and literary production

Mehmed-Meho Saćip was born on the 4th of September in 1944 in Gnjilane, Kosovo.134
He lived and was raised on Ivo Lola Ribar Street in the Masaručka Mahala, one of four Romani
mahalas (neighbourhoods) that existed in the town. Out of 33 children of Romani origin, he was
the only one to pass the exams given at the Textile Technical School. However, due to lack of
material means, he was unable to continue his education at university.
As with many other Romani children, Saćip had musical talent. Ten years after finishing
school he began to play music and to perform in well-known restaurants throughout the entire
country of Yugoslavia. He played many instruments, sang, composed, and recorded records and
cassette tapes.
After working for a time as a musician he started to work as a journalist. In 1978 he began
his career as a reporter and photojournalist at the information centre of a textile firm. In 1983 he
became the first radio journalist to work for Radio Gnjilane, in charge of editing the Romani
program. He was also involved in the social-political life of Gnjilane and in the province of
Kosmet (Kosovo).
He debuted as a writer by writing poetry for children, and wrote several songs collected
under the title Loli phabaj [Red Apple] during the 1980s135. In 1984 a small book of poetry
containing 18 poems and entitled Bučarne vaste was produced in the Romani language by the
publisher Književna sekcija’s literary division “Čajupi” in Gnjilane. The next poetry book
Pomeranje sofre/Sofrako miškuipe [Displaced Sofreh Table]136 was published in 1995 by Novi
Svet in Priština. That same year the book was promoted at the Belgrade Book Fair, where Saćip
won a special prize to attend a book fair in Italy. In 1998, the book of poetry Mirikle [Necklace]

134
All of the biographical and literary production information was culled first from the Antologija romske poezije
(Sarajevo: Sarajevske sveske 39/40, 2012) and the Antologija e Rromane poezijaći/Antologija romske poezije
(Zagreb: Romska udruga Romski putevi, 2012), and then cross-checked for verification and corrected through my
email correspondence with the author on 17 May 2014 and 29 July 2014.
135
In the Antologija romske poezije (Sarajevo: Sarajevske sveske 39/40, 2012), the date of publication for Loli
phabaj is listed as 1986. In the Antologija e Rromane poezijaći /Antologija romske poezije (Zagreb: Romska udruga
Romski putevi, 2012), the date for the same work is listed as 1982.The author wrote in the 1980s.
136
In the Antologija romske poezije (Sarajevo: Sarajevske sveske 39/40, 2012), the publication date given for
Sofrako Miškope is 1994. The date given by the author is 1995, which was cross-checked at
http://www.katalog.kgz.hr/pagesResults/rezultati.aspx?&searchById=40&spid0=10&spv0=Sa%C4%87ip%2c+Meh
med&xm0=1, where it was also indicated as 1995. The Antologija e Rromane poezijaći/Antologija romske poezije
(Zagreb:Romska udruga Romski putevi, 2012) say in their entry on Saćip that he was published in the Antologija
romske poezije in 1999 but there is no data on this in the Sarajevo anthology listed above, nor by the author.

133
was co-published by Radio Gnjilane, Centar za kulturu “Zarije R. Popović” and Narodna
biblioteka “Janko Veselinović”.
In 2004 his poetry book Kalendar was published by the Kulturni centar Romi in Subotica,
Serbia. In 2013 he received the prestigious Ferenc Sztojka137 Award for his lifelong work in
poetry and Romani language creativity. The award was presented to him in Zagreb on the “World
Day of the Rromani language” which is organized every year on the 5th of November.138 Saćip’s
poems have been published in several anthologies, including:
• poetry collection Jaga/Vatre [Fires] (Balić, Sait [redakcioni odbor et al.];
Bujanovac: XI Smotra kulturnih dostignuća Roma SR Srbije, 1984)
• Antologija romske poezije (Sarajevo: Sarajevske sveske 39/40, 2012)
• Antologija e Rromane poezijaći/Antologija romske poezije
(Zagreb:Romska udruga Romski putevi, 2012)

He has also authored the following works:

• poetry book Bučarne vasta [Diligent Hands] (Gnjilane: Književna sekcija
Čajupi,1984)
• poetry book Sofrako miškuipe/Pomeranje sofre [Displaced Sofreh Table],
adaptation with assistance by Blagoje Savić and published in Romani and
Serbian (in both Latin and Cyrillic alphabets) (Priština: Novi Svet, 1995)139
• poetry book Mirikle published in Romani (Gnjilane: Radio Gnjilane,
Centar culture “Zarije R. Popović”, Narodna biblioteka “Janko
Veselinović”,1998)
• poetry book Kalendar, published in Romani and Serbian (Subotica:
Kulturni centar Roma, 2004)

137
Ferenc Sztojka was the first Romani lexicographer. He was a native speaker of Lovari dialect. Sztojka, F. (1890)
O császári és magyar királyi Fensége József Fóherczeg. Magyar ésczigány nyelv gyök-szótára, Paks (Second edition
of a work originally published in 1886, by, Kalocsa).
138
The World Day of the Rromani Language was first celebrated on November 5 th, 2009. The date was chosen to
commemorate the day in 2008 when Veljko Kajtazi’s Romani-Croatian and Croatian-Romani Dictionary was
published. Both the Ferenc Sztojka (the first Romani lexicographer who published the first international dictionary
with 13,000 Romani words) and Šaip Jusuf (author of one of the first Romani grammars) awards are given to
deserving individuals every year in Zagreb. The Ferenc Sztojka and the Šaip Jusuf awards for life-long work are
given to these who are working on the issue for the development of Romani language.
139
Data on all works in this section was cross-checked at the Katalog Knjižnica Grada Zagreba online
http://www.katalog.kgz.hr/pagesResults/rezultati.aspx?&searchById=40&spid0=10&spv0=Sa%C4%87ip%2c+Meh
med&xm0=1. Only Bučarne vasta did not appear. The others were correct.

134
 Mehmed-Meho Saćip died on 23.11.2015 in Subotica, Serbia.

b. Analyses of Poem “Cahra – Čerga”

Selection of the poem is based on my question to the poet about the most favourite poem
he would like to contribute for the analysis in my work. Mehmed-Meho Saćip opted for the poem
“Cahra” [Romani Tent]. The poem was first published only in the Romani language (Kosovo Arli
dialect140), in a poetry collection entitled Bučarne vasta, in1984 (Saćip 1984). Later the same
year it was published in a bilingual edition (Romani/Serbian) of poems entitled Jaga/Vatre
(Balić 1984). The poem is deleyed self-translation by the poet.
Cahra Čerga Romani Tent
Kosovo Arli Romani (AL1) Serbian (AL2) English (NAL3)
1.Avdive akate tajsa avre 1.Danas je ovde sutra 1.Today here tomorrow
thaneste tamo there
Avdive dikheala tajsa Danas je vidiš sutra ne Today you see her
nanetani Njene su najlepše tomorrow you don’t
Lakri majšukar amalin drugarice Her most beautiful friends
i čar, i len hem dajekh bar Poljane reke kamenje are meadows rivers stones

2.O anav lakro cahra 2.Ime joj je čerga 2.Her name is tent
Adžahar pendjardi Celom svetu znana Known to all the world
Dajekh drom tu da I ti si nekada video And you saw sometimes
dikhela Dim i vatru čerge Smoke and fire of the tent
Lakri jag thaj lakro thuv
3.O verigama kotlić 3.Onto the pothook is put
3.Ko trin kašta o kotlo pun vode the kettle
čhivdo U njemu bilje svakojako Full of water
So pherdžape pani Za sirotinjsku večeru In it, all sorts of herbs
Andro pani thaj savena For a poor person’s

140
“Arli Romani varieties belong to the Balkan group, more specifically the Southern Balkan group. The Arli
Romani varieties cluster is rather complex and data on individual varieties spoken in different regions is yet sparse.
Arli varieties are spoken in the southern part of the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro, in Kosovo, in Macedonia,
and in the northern part of Greece.” (ROMLEX: http://romani.uni-graz.at/romlex/dialects.xml, and see Matras 2002)

135
 čarja 4.Okolo vatre posedala supper
Čerdžola jek čorba sani deca
Na reci se konji poje 4.Around the fire are
4.O čhavore uzali jag Sve je to oko čerge moje. seated children
bešen At the river horses drink
Grastenge da delape pani water
A sa odova i čerga i All of this is around my
romani tent.
The English translation has relied on the Romani and Serbian versions.

Version AL1 (Kosovo Arli Romani)

Cahra Romani Tent

Kosovo Arli Romani (AL1) English (NAL1)
1.Avdive akate tajsa avre thaneste 1.Today here tomorrow on other place
Avdive dikheala tajsa nanetani Today you see her tomorrow is no place
Lakri majšukar amalin Her most beautiful friend
i čar, i len hem dajekh bar Meadow, river and one stone

2.O anav lakro cahra 2. Her name is tent

Adžahar pendjardi Everywhere known
Dajekh drom tu da dikhela Once time you saw
Lakri jag thaj lakro thuv Her fire and her smoke

3.Ko trin kašta o kotlo čhivdo 3.On three woods the kettle is put
So pherdžape pani Full of water
Andro pani thaj savena čarja In water all sorts of herbs
Čerdžola jek čorba sani It is made one soup thin

136
 4.O čhavore uzali jag bešen 4.Children next to the fire seat
Grastenge da delape pani To horses give water
A sa odova i čerga i romani All of this is tent Romani.

The English literal translation has relied on the Romani version.

In terms of basic structure, the poem is written in four stanzas – three of which have four
lines and one (the last), three. The poet makes ample use of visual imagery throughout the whole
poem. He chooses his words and constructs the images as if he were managing a camera, starting
from afar and gradually zooming in with his lens to bring the reader closer and finally into the
picture. When creating his first image, he begins with words that are associated with cooler
meanings: nouns čar (meadow), len (river), and bar (stone). For his second image, the distance is
shortened, with the nouns like jag (fire) and thuv (smoke) bringing the reader closer to more
warmth. The third image depicts the kotlo (kettle) and čorba (soup), which connote even warmer
associations, gradually progressing to the fourth image which seems snapped like a picture, in
close proximity. The poet brings the reader around the fire, čhavore (children) around the jag,
with the grastenge (horses) and i čerga i romani (Romani tent) completing the picture. Using
symbols (and therefore nouns) that are typically associated with the nomadic Romani way of life,
the poet at the same time projects a stereotypical picture of a Romani tent. By self-translating into
the majority society language, the dialogic relationship between Romani and the other language
created by the Romani writer can transform stereotypical representations (such as the Romani
tent) into a type of literary device which is also able to cultivate additional meaning(s).
A few examples help make these points. In the first line of the first stanza in the Romani
version, Saćip writes the Romani noun thaneste, which is the locative case of the word than –
meaning ‘place’ in all of the major Romani dialects141. In the second line of the same stanza, he
writes nanetani, as declined noun or/and as declined pronoun in genitive case. There are a few
observations to be made here. First of all, the poet has not included the letter ‘h’ [as in noun than]
in the writing of nanetani. Nor has he separated the negative particle nane142 from the word as
would have been preferable for him to do according to grammar and orthography rules that are

141
According to the dictionaries that have been published.
142
Another way to designate the negative particle is naj, in the Gurbeti and Kalderaš dialects.

137
being used by many authors who write in Romani. If the word in the poem is pronounced orally,
then interlocutors would have no problem recognizing and understanding it, but not all Romani
groups (some Gurbeti, Kalderashi or Lovari, for example) would understand the word as it is
written. It could, however, be grasped in its written form if it were spelled as nane thani or nane
than. As we’ll see in the AL2 analysis, the self-translated poem resolves this ‘dilemma’. He uses
this form as is to be used in Kosovo local speech. In that way he hopes to appoint as many as
possible Arli readers i.e. audience raising consciousness of intralingual specifities of Romani and
at the same time raising consciousness of Romani self intraethnic Arli identity.
Another example can be found in the third and fourth lines of the first stanza. Noun
amalin (literally ‘female friend’) is clearly singular in the Romani, and in the context of the poem
implies a relationship to čar, len, and bar – designated in the singular here - without explicitly
using the verb ‘to be’143 form si. By retaining the singular number (rather than plural), the poet
makes the relationship expressed more tangible, more ‘specific’. It is worth noting that in
Romani, the singular forms of the nouns čar, len, and bar are used normally to designate concrete
singularity, i.e. a specific meadow, river, stone – and not abstractly in reference to the overall
category. It should also be mentioned that the si form [conjugation] of the verb “to be” can be
used for both singular and plural, i.e. ‘is’ and ‘are’. As we’ll see, analysis of the self-translated
poem (AL2) reveals how the poet selected one of several options available to him for ‘rendering’
the Romani words through translation into his majority society language.
While it is difficult to determine the exact reasons why and when the poet uses the
language as he does, it is important to point out in the analyses those areas where certain
instances potentially reflect the existence of a kind of ‘translingual territory’, i.e. where
communication “[i]s not restricted to predefined meanings of individual languages, but [to] the
[writer’s] ability to merge different language resources in situated interactions for new meaning
construction” (Canagarajah 2013). This territory can cover a wide range of situations, including
those similar to the ones noted above, as well as relatively transparent instances of loan words
being incorporated into the text. For example, the noun čorba used in the Romani version
actually means ‘soup’ in Serbian and in the other local languages of former Yugoslavia.
Although the poet’s mother tongue Romani is very good, he uses this word rather than the
Romani noun zumi.

143
Note that Romani verbs do not have infinitive forms.

138
 Thinking about readers of the poem it is important to mention that literacy level of
Romani groups is very low because of their every day survivol situation which takes precedence
over literacy acquisition. The written text in Romani does not exist to the extent to form a wide
Romani readership (Toninato 2014, 89). Poems in Romani with its self-translations address
mostly non-Romani readers (Toninato 2004, 199).

Version AL2 (Serbian)

Čerga Romani Tent

Serbian (AL2) English (NAL2)
1.Danas je ovde sutra tamo 1.Today is here tomorrow there
Danas je vidiš sutra ne Today you see her tomorrow no
Njene su najlepše drugarice Her most beautiful friends
Poljane reke kamenje Meadows rivers stones

2.Ime joj je čerga 2.Her name is tent

Celom svetu znana Known to all the world
I ti si nekada video And you sometimes saw
Dim i vatru čerge Smoke and fire of the tent

3.O verigama kotlić 3.Onto the pothook is kettle

pun vode Full of water
U njemu bilje svakojako In it, all herbs
Za sirotinjsku večeru For poor supper

4.Okolo vatre posedala deca 4.Around the fire sit children

Na reci se konji poje At the river horses drink
Sve je to oko čerge moje. All of this is around my tent.
The English literal translation has relied on the Serbian version.

139
 Visually, in terms of its layout and structure, the poet’s self-translation in Serbian (AL2)
mirrors the Romani version (AL1). Likewise, the images consecutively build on one another as
the visual gaze of the reader approximates (like a camera) the fire and its warmth. This technique
is retained in the poet’s self-translation. However, there are also slight shifts. The first two lines
of the first stanza in Serbian (AL2) clarify any instance of misinterpretation or ambiguity in the
same two lines of the Romani version (AL1). The words sutra tamo and sutra ne (literally
‘tomorrow there’ and ‘tomorrow no’, respectively) are used correctly and clearly, in standard
Serbocroatian. Later in the same stanza, the last two lines transform the singularity of the verses
in the original Romani into the plural in the Serbian self-translation. ‘Friend’ becomes ‘friends’,
and the nouns meadows (poljane), rivers (reke), and stones (kamenje) become broader, more
abstract categories, in line with usage and grammar in Serbian. In other words, singular forms of
the words would not be used in Serbian or Serbocroatian. There is no ambiguity, and the
grammatical correspondence is clear. Furthermore, the use of the plural implies movement, as
only in moving do the meadow, river, and stone multiply and transform into the plural. The
Serbian version reflects this movement, which is a movement of bringing multiple views of
friends, objects, and places.
While the stanza’s translation, i.e. transformation from its expression in Romani to its
expression in Serbian, may not have been conceived by the poet in terms of a particular, specific
translation strategy, the results of his translation practice have implications on the reception of
the poem by the two language publics; less often on Romani bilingual readers, and more usually
on monolingual non-Romani readers. This is apparent if they are read separately, as autonomous
entities. For example, using the singular in Romani to designate the objects of nature in the poem
has the effect of personalizing them, in addition to their personification. It could thus also reflect
a personal case of memory. It is easy to imagine that the poet has subconsciously envisioned or
remembered a specific place where the cahra once was placed. The image conjured in Romani is
one of nostalgia. The meadow, river, and stone seem to point to a specific time and place when
and where the tent was set up. This sense of nostalgia is not transmitted in the Serbian self-
translation. And, while the prescribed usage of the nouns in Serbian calls for the plural to be used
(respected in the poetry), the usage of the nouns in Romani is used in the singular, even though
speakers normally use them in the plural. The Romani version is more individual, personal
whereas the Serbian is more collective universal.

140
 Like the Romani version, the Serbian version reflects ample use of personification,
metaphor, and the figurative use of words to create mood and tone in the poem. The čerga, or
cahra, is introduced as human-like, as female. She moves constantly and daily from one place to
another. Her image connotes an expression of instability in her existence. She is adorned by the
presence of her beautiful friend(s): meadow(s), river(s), and stone(s), personified with human-
like qualities. The poet alternates between the nostalgia of the cahra implied in the Romani
version, and the romanticized, voyeuristic image projected by the čerga in the Serbian version.
But in both versions the poet draws on stereotypical images of Roma to subtly and ironically
subvert the picture. The imagery of fire and smoke is one way he accomplishes this. The last two
lines of the second stanza remind the reader that Romani visibility can be perceived only partially
through the fire and smoke of the stereotypical picture created by non-Romani communities
watching from the outside.
The poet brings the reader in closer to the čerga/cahra through stanzas three and four and
simultaneously increases the clarity of the image.
The focus of the third stanza is on food. He makes use of the Serbian word čorba (‘soup’)
in the Romani version of the poem, and opts for the noun phrase sirotinjsku večeru (‘poor
person’s supper’) in the Serbian version. The implication is that the Roma can be satisfied with
just a little, with just enough to survive – or, that even while poor they were at least able to eat
once a day. The fourth stanza rounds out the picture with a focus on children and on horses. The
grasta of the Romani version drink the water that has been given to them by human beings, but
of the Serbian version konji drink on their own in the waters of the river. Most notably, at the
end, the poet uses the Serbian noun čerga for cahra, in both versions, and states that all that is
čerga is Romani (in the Romani version) and all that is around his čerga is his, i.e. belongs to
him (in the Serbian version). Through the slight shifts from one language version to the next, the
poet slightly shifts position and point of view, addressing his slightly different but interrelated, by
virtue of history-audiences. His point of view is to indicate Romani position in the society, a
previously marginalized space which was intended just for Roma, for their horses, for their čerga
- a separated Romani space. Despite separation and marginalization poet as bilingual/multilingual
and self-translator is able to get out of limited Romani space, and create a new one. For him these
spaces are different but interrelated. Even though he contributes to creation of a national
consciousness and national literature, in relationship between the cultures, between languages,

141
čerga remains only his. His ethnic, cultural and language identity, presented in this stereotypical
way, remains attractive to gather non-Romani audience but also Romani.
The English version does not depart from the Romani and Serbian versions in terms of
syntax, probably because of the reason we mentioned before – the simplicity of forms used in
poetry. Poet’s own self-analysis of poem is followed by a comment.

Version AL1 and AL2 (Poet’s own self-analysis of poem “Cahra – Čerga”)

Correspondence with author on 12.05.2015 and 29.07.2015

Mi koji pišemo na romskom jeziku We who write in the Romani language
često smo primorani da imamo i adekvatan are often forced to have a proper translation
prevod odnosno prepev što zbog samih [R]oma recast of the poem, for ourselves, Roma, who
koji slabo poznaju dialekte takodje zbog ne- have poor knowledge of the dialects. The
[R]oma kako bi poezija bila dostupnija i translation is done also so that non-Roma can
razumljivija odnosno čitanija. have more access to our poetry and understand
it when reading.

Dosta često, i sam romski pesnik Quite often, Romani poets try to
pokušava da vrši prevod što ne mora da znaći translate their own work, but it does not
da će on to najbolje i da učini. Ima pesnika koji necessarily mean that they can do it in the best
pišu na srpskom ili nekom drugom jeziku a da way. There are poets who write in Serbian and
nakon toga vrši prevod na romskom ali in other languages first, and then after writing
zasigurno takav prevod ili prepev ostaje daleko they translate into Romani. In that way, I think,
siromašniji u izrazima ili u krajnjem slućaju the poem [in Romani] remains far poorer in
kao nedorečen. Jest da romski jezik postoji ali terms of expressions or the meaning remains
je dosta nepoznat i medju samim [R]omima. incomplete. The upshot is that the Romani
language exists but it is [still] quite unknown
among Roma.

142
 Svakako da zavisi u mnogome od Of course, this depends largely on the
urbanog dela okoline u kojoj se romi nalaze i urban places where Roma live, and depends on
same njihove zainteresovanosti za što boljim the interest they have in improving knowledge
poznavanjem maternjeg jezika. of their mother tongue.

Saćip’s self-analysis anwers my questions from the questionnaire144 I provided to each

poet. I would rather say this is a dialogue which involves autoethnography and with reflexivity it
helps to create personal and collective moral positions about the issue of Romani čhib and
translation. Some points of his answers have to be clarified because Saćip gave very short
information bearing in mind about my knowledge about the situation. It could be that he forgot
that this work would be read by people who do not know anything about Roma and the Romani
language and translation problem. As he wrote “[we are forced to have translation for ourselves,
Roma]” he was thinking about different Romani dialects (all poets are writing in their own
dialects) which are spoken in large Romani community. He also thought about the Roma who do
not know to write Romani but speak Romani, he was thinking also about different Romani
dialects (all poets write in their own dialects) which are spoken in a large Romani community.
He also thought about the Roma who do not speak or write Romani but speak Romani, he also
had in mind the Roma who do not speak or writer Romani but speak and read majority language,
and at the same time had in mind very poor Romani readership. There is also one more point I
have to mention that Saćip might have had on his mind but did not write it. It is very hard to
create a Romani readership because there are still plenty of Roma who, because of economic
reasons and because of their habits and very traditional ways of living, refuse ‘written Romani
word’. Knowing it, his words “[who have poor knowledge of dialects]” become understandable.
It opens a discussion about ways of translation from Romani into national language and from a
national language into Romani. His opinon about poorer and incomplete terms of expression in
the way when they are first written in a majority a national language and translated into Romani
justifies my point of view that poems written in their original and in their self-translation or
translation complement each other when refer to the Romani readers who speak both languages.
Non-Romani readers would not recognize this incompleteness such as Romani who do not speak

144
See annex V.

143
or write Romani čhib. Logically following his answers we come to the sentence “[The upshot is
that the Romani language exists but it is [still] quite unknown among Roma],” confirms the
problem of education in and of the Romani čhib.

144
4.3 NEDJO OSMAN

a. Biographical information and literary production145

Nedjo Osman was born in 1958 in the capital city of Skopje, Macedonia. He graduated
from the Academy for Theatre and Film in Novi Sad, Serbia, and studied under the
internationally known actor Rade Šerbedžija. His career as an artist began with the Romani
Theatre (troupe) Phralipe [Brotherhood], with which he performed in Macedonia, Germany, and
various places in Serbia. Some of these places include the National Theatre in Subotica, the
Theater in Novi Sad, and the Yugoslavian Drama Theater in Belgrade. As a member and actor
with Theatre Phralipe and other troupes affiliated with the National Theatre of Subotica, he
participated in many professional theatre festivals, from Athens to Mexico City. Some of his
salient roles with Theater Phralipe were: Leonardo, in Blood Wedding (F. G. Lorca); Romeo, in
Romeo and Juliette (Shakespeare); Othello, in Othello (Shakespeare); Creon, in Oedipus Rex
(Sophocles), and Marat in Marat/Sade (P. Weiss), all of which were performed in Romani.
In 1995 with his partner Nada Kokotović he founded the Theatre TKO – International
Roma Theatre in Cologne, Germany, where he has worked as a co-founder, artistic director,
director and actor. In addition to his involvement with the Theatre TKO, Osman has performed at
local German city theatres in Düsseldorf, Saarbrücken, Frankfurt am Main, Nordhausen and
Cologne. In 2009 he directed the theatre project Opera Nomadi, which he co-authored with
Christel Jorges (Theater TKO / Choreodrama - Romano Theater 2009). In 2013, the Theatre TKO
Cologne produced the choreodrama Rukeli (Theater TKO / Choreodrama - Romano
Theater 2013) based on the script “Zigeuner-Boxer [Gypsy-boxer]” written by Rike Reiniger,
with Nedjo Osman performing as actor along with Arno Kempf. With his partner Nada
Kokotović he has also co-authored other theatre plays and performed in them:
 Elses und andere Geschichten [Else and other Stories] in 2013
 Lolo bašno/Roten Hahn [Red rooster] in 2014

From 2000-2009 he edited and moderated a program in Romani with Radio Multikulti in Berlin.
Since 2002 he has also been editing and moderating a Romani program produced by Deutsche
Welle in Bonn (Osman and Đurić 2013).
145
I have written this biographical and bibliographical section based on the information provided to me by the author
Nedjo Osman. It was cross-checked with entries on him in two anthologies which provide very basic information:
Antologija romske poezije (Sarajevo: Sarajevske sveske 39/40, 2012), and Antologija e Rromane poezijaći
/Antologija romske poezije (Zagreb: Romska udruga Romski putevi, 2012).

145
 He has performed in different classical and modern dramas, and received various awards:
 “Golden Laurel Wreath Award” for the role of Leonardo in Blood wedding
by F.G. Lorca at the MES Festival in Sarajevo in 1991
 “Golden Laurel Wreath Award” for the role of Sebastian in the theater play
Anita Berber at the Vojvodjanski Susreti [Vojvodina meetings] in 1997
 “Yul Brynner Award” for directing the play Medea in Berlin followed by
an award as best Romani actor in 2003.146

His performances include roles in Othello (Shakespeare), The Oresteia-Eumenides

(Aeschylus), Bluebeard’s Castle (Béla Balázs), The Lover (M.Duras), and as Sebastian in Anita
Berber. Osman is also well-known on German TV and in feature films, with acting roles in:
 Eine Braut kommt selten allein [A bride rarely comes alone] (2017)
 Casino Coup (XY) (2014)
 Bis zum Ende der Welt [Until the End of the World] (2013)
 Danni Lowinski (2012)
 Die schwarzen Brüder [Black Brothers] (2012)
 Eine Insel namens Udo [An Island Named Udo] (2011)
 Drei gegen Troja [Three Against Troy](2005) (TV)
 Alles Atze [All Atze] (1 Folge, 2005)
 Nicht ohne meinen Anwalt [Not Without My Lawyer] (1 Folge, 2003)
 Die Sturzflieger [The Swoop](1995)
 Srpski rulet [Serbian Roulette] (1991) (TV)
 Trst via Skopje [Trieste via Skopje](4 Folgen, 1987)

Nedjo Osman is also a poet, and has published his poems in Romani, German, Turkish,
Serbian and Macedonian. He discovered his desire to write when he was a child, and has drawn
his inspiration from the Romani mahala [Romani neighbourhood or settlement] and his
experience of life alongside non-Roma. An important source of creativity for him is the notion of
love as a concept of beauty. He is included in many Roma projects in Cologne and in Frankfurt
am Main. His poetry book co-authored and edited with Marion Menzel, Ali Erenler and A. Kadir

146
I have been unable to verify further details on the Yul Brynner award.

146
Konuk (eds.) is entitled Dört Dilden Sii /Patrin147. It was published in Istanbul by Belge
Uluslararasi Yayincilik in 1999. His book of poetry Gebäre mich nicht/Nemoj me rađati [Don’t
give birth to me] was published in Weilerwist by Verlag Landpresse in 2006. Osman also works
as a social worker and as a Romani mediator.

b. Analyses of Poem “Ma bijan man - Beni doğurma - Gebäre mich nicht - Nemoj
me rađati [Don’t Give Birth to Me]”
“Ja pišem na romskom, kombinaciju dijalekata: kovački (bugurdjiski) arlijski i djambaski
dijalekt [I write in Romani, in a combination of dialects]”, writes Nedjo Osman148, “[the Kovach
(Bugurdji) Arli and Djambasi dialects]”.
As noted in the line above, Osman writes his poems first in his mother tongue Romani. As
an author and self-translator, however, he also writes in Macedonian, Turkish, Serbian and
German. In order to make sure the grammar is correct in the multiple language versions of his
poetry in self-translation149, he always sends his poems to professional proofreaders after self-
translating, in order to finalize them for publishing. Self-translated Turkish version of his poem
Ma bijan man/Beni dogurma/Gebäre mich nicht (Osman et al. 1999, 14-16) was proofread by Ali
Erenler. His self-translation in German was proofread by Mirjana and Klaus Wittman. According
to the poet, self-translation versions in Turkish and German arose consecutively. The self-
translated Serbian version arose delayed and was not proofread, but it was sent to me for analysis
in the dissertation150, and the English translation is mine. Self-translation versions are analysed in
the chronology of their creation. Analysis of the poem is based on my knowledge of Romani,
Serbian, German and English; the Turkish translation has not been considered here.
The poem is entitled “Don’t Give Birth to Me”, and through it Nedjo Osman speaks to his
readers in general. He uses no diacritical marks, and makes use of punctuation and upper case
letters to create a visual effect. The poem is written in one stanza, but there are nine (9) complete
meanings – in the form of sentences – presented as visual pictures. The sentences follow no
particular rhyming scheme but are broken into lines, thus establishing a poetic structure visually.

147
In Romani, the word patrin has different meanings:leaf (on a tree), leaf/sheet of paper, page, flake (snowflake);
see Lee 2011, 228.
148
In our email correspondence dated 4 May 2014.
149
In our email correspondence in May and July 2014.
150
In our email correspondence dated 22 July 2014.

147
 Gebäre mich Don’t give birth
Ma bijan man Beni doğurma Nemoj me rađati
nicht to me
Mix Romani
Turkish (AL2) German (AL3) Serbian (AL4) English (NAL4)
Dialects (AL1)
1: Okole plajeste O bilinen tepede 1:Auf jenem 1:Na onoj njivi // 1:On this field
mo dat// cinelsine arpa biçiyordu Hügel// mähte der gde konji prolaze //where the horses
pus // babam // Vater Korn // // tata mi žito za were passing //
javere grastenge. başkalarinin atlari Für die Pferde njih žanje.// Dok my father
2:Okole cergate için // doğurmuştu anderer //In jenem sunce sija // gathered hay // for
mi daj// bijanel annem // topraği Lager 2:a majka mi rađa other people’s
sine // yakarken güneş u toj čergi // ispod horses, // 2: and
djikana o kam 2:Kam die Mutter koje zemlja peče my mother was
takarel i puf. doğmadan önce // nieder // während giving birth in a
3:Te djanav sine iki sözcük die Sonne auf die 3:Te tri reči da tent // while the
trin lafija// anglal bilseydim sadece Erde brannte sam ih samo // sun scorched the
te bijangljovav // // prije mog rođenja earth. // 3:If I
ka vakeravav sine derdim ki // beni 3:Hätte ich vor znao // rekao bih knew just three
// doğurma // dert meiner Geburt // 4:Ne rađaj me words //
ma bijan man. çekmek için Nur drei Worte Before I was born
4:Uljum yaratildim // gewusst // hätte Moja bit postala // I would say
paripnaske // çalişmak icin ich gesagt // je breme // moje
bariljum bugjake büyüdüm // Gebäre mich nicht rastanje postao je Don’t give birth
// yaşlandim lime // 4:Für’s Leid bin rad // to me
puriljum// hem lime ich geschaffen // tako ostarih //
nasavgiljum. Für die Fron i razboleh se 4: My existence
5:Te muljum// ölürsem // grossgezogen turned // into a
civen pani i çiçekleri sulayin // //Altgeworden 5:Ako burden // growing
lulugjenge // birakin çimen und verbraucht // umrem//zalijte up turned into
muken i car the büyüsün // 5:Wenn ich sterbe cveće vodom work // I got old //
bajrol ölürsem birakin // Gebt den //pustite nek trava I got sick.

148
6:Te muljum koşsun atlar // Blumen Wasser // raste //
7:E grasten kuşlarima lasst das Gras 6: Ako umrem 5:When I die
muken te prastan// yildizlar baksin // wachsen // 7:konje odvežite //pour water on
o cerenja me o altin baliklar 6:Wenn ich sterbe // i pustite neka the flowers //let
cirikle te araken // yesin // 7:lasst die Pferde jure //moju pticu the grass grow
galbane mace ben öldüğümde // laufen // Die zvjezde neka 6:When I die //
oleske te den akmasin Sterne sollen čuvaju // nek joj 7:release the
8:The muljum // gözyaşlariniz // meine Taube zlatne ribice horses // let the
asvin ma muken // düşümü bölmeyin hüten // Goldene poklone // 8: Ako horses run // may
muken man // bendeki ağirliği Fische soll sie umrem // nemojte the stars protect
korkoro// mo suno alin // ölürsem // bekommen // suze liti //pustite my birds // may
ma cinaven benden 8:Wenn ich sterbe me samog // ne they feed them
9:Te muljum // sözetmeyin. // prekidajte mi san golden fish // 8:
mandar kanci ma Vergießt keine When I die // shed
vakeren. Träne // 9:Ako umrem //o no tear // leave me
Unterbrecht nicht meni nemojte ni alone ( do not
meinen Traum // reč reći disturb me) // do
Erzählt nicht von not break my
mir. // dream.
9Wenn ich sterbe.
9:When I die //Do
not speak about
me.
The English translation has relied on the Romani, German and Serbian versions.

Analysis of Version AL1 (Romani, mixed dialect)

Ma bijan man Don’t give birth to me
Mix Romani Dialects (AL1) English (NAL1)
1: Okole plajeste mo dat// cinelsine pus // 1: On this field my father //cut hay// for other
javere grastenge. horses.
2:Okole cergate mi daj// bijanel sine // 2: In this tent my mother// was giving birth//

149
djikana o kam takarel i puf. while the sun scorched the earth.
3:Te djanav sine trin lafija// anglal te 3: If I knew three words //before I was born //
bijangljovav // ka vakeravav sine // ma bijan I would say// don´t give birth to me.
man.
4:Uljum paripnaske // bariljum bugjake 4: I parted because of pain, burden // I grew
//puriljum// hem nasavgiljum. working// I got old // and I got sick.
5:Te muljum// civen pani i lulugjenge 5: When I die //pour water on the flowers
//muken i car the bajrol //let the grass grow //
6:Te muljum 6: When I die
7:E grasten muken te prastan// o cerenja me 7: horses let to run // the stars my birds to
cirikle te araken // galbane mace oleske te protect // golden fish them to give
den
8:The muljum //asvin ma muken //muken 8: When I die // do not cry // leave me alone
man korkoro// mo suno ma cinaven // my dream do not cut
9:Te muljum //mandar kanci ma vakeren. 9: When I die //do not speak about me.

The English literal translation has relied on the Romani version.

From the start, the title of the poem reveals a tone of frustration and pain: Ma bijan
man/Beni dogurma/Gebäre mich nicht/[Don’t give birth to me]. The clause ma bijan man reflects
the poet’s depression and remorse at being born and alive. There is no doubt that he is bitter at
the life he is living. His inner pain is so powerful that he would prefer to die. The title
immediately introduces a sense of bitterness, one that accompanies the poet’s memories and
occupies his entire being. He remembers his father (dat) and his mother (daj), and the hard life
they lived, which has its extension by projecting onto his own life. This autobigraphical poem is
created by poet´s own experience, by own dreary memories in which his heavy, unforgettable
sadness is located. These memories inside are profoundly bitter, although they contrast with his
appearantly successful life. Life, successful or not, does not erase memories. Memories remain
permanent if a human being remains mentally healthy. The advantage of the poet in this case is
that he is sharing his memories while creating the poem with three different language versions of
self-translation and at the same time gathering and creating his readership.

150
 The first sentence, “Okole plajeste mo dat/cinelsine pus/javere grastenge,” presents the
initial sequence of words that will create the visual picture of the poem’s backdrop: mountain
(plajin); father (dat); who is cutting hay only (cinelsine pus); for the other people’s horses (javere
grastenge).
The second sentence, “Okole cergate mi daj/bijanel sine/djikana o kam takarel i puf,” sets
the dramatic tone more concretely in place. The image of the tent (cergate) is ‘seen’, in which his
mother (daj) gives birth (bijanel sine) while the sun (kam) shines very strongly, intensely heating
(takarel) the earth (puf). Visual imagination gives way to imagination of sound, and we sense that
we can hear a mother’s maternity cries as she gives birth to her child within the tent.
In the third sentence, the poet reveals the direct meaning of the poem: “Te djanav sine trin
lafija/anglal te bijangljovav/ka varkeravav sine/ma bijan man [If I knew these three words/
before I was born/ I would say /Don’t give birth to me]”.151 The depressed mood of the poet is
reflected in the very sad tone of these simply and powerfully stated words.
A fight for survival and existence as the only purpose of poet´s life is shown in the fourth
sentence. Working hard, he had not realized how time had passed, life had passed, all of which
brought him to a state of sickness. His subjectivity allows him to dramatize emotions and create
relationship with own community as surgeon “of the heart and souls of a community” (Ngugi wa
Thiong´o, 1987: ix).
The fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth sentences are a call to readers in community to heed
his wishes of what to do and how to proceed after he dies. Lulugjenge (flowers); [č]ar (grass);
grasten (horses); [č]erenja (stars); and[č]irikle (birds) were imprisoned in life with him, caught
within his depression and bitterness. As asking the readers to take care of them he is also asking
them, at the same time but indirectly, to take care about him too. It is in contrast what he is telling
in the ninth, and last, sentence which ends with the words: Te muljum/mandar kanci ma vakeren
[When I die / Do not speak about me]. Poet exaggerates in his self-tragedy. If the readers fulfil
his testament i.e. his will, and if they are freeing his flowers, grass, stars which also belong to
them i.e. to community, he knows he has reached the own Romani people as audience/readers.
This freeing is at the same time also his release as a Roma man and as an author.

151
Here the poet refers to the three words in the Romani version: ma bijan man. The translations are not always three
words, but can be considered as three small units.

151
 Rhythm and rhyme are present in the poem as of the fourth sentence, where the poet
creates repetition on the ending “um” (indicative of a 1 st person singular verb conjugation):
uljum, bariljum, puriljum, and hem nasavgiljum. The consonance plays on the consonant sounds
at the end of the verbs, and gives a musical scheme to the poem. The same poetic musical device
is deployed in the lines to confer a very strong tone, again by using verbal forms: te prastan, te
araken, te den, ma muken, hinaven, ma vakeren. The repeated lines Te muljum, the muljum give
dramatic tone and meaning to the poem.

Finally, a word on the use of the various Romani dialects in the poem is in order. The poet
writes certain words -dat, kam, puf, bugjake, lulugjenge, mace- in ways that are not generally
used in the written form by other Romani groups. They may be characteristic of his mix of
“Kovach (Bugurdji) Arli and Djambasi dialects”. However, according to most Romani writers
and to dictionaries that have been published (see chapter on Language) these words should be
written as dad, kham, phuv, butjake/butiake/bućake, luludjenge and mačhe. In this case, we could
speculate that either Osman does not know how to write in the Romani used by most writers in
the region (and beyond), or that he intentionally writes in this “combination of dialects” as a way
of expressing his position about the process of standardisation in Poland, and its decision about
the use of the written Romani čhib. In this case letters or sounds are less important than the words
and language which dictate the meaning of the poem. Also, it is inseparable to mention poet’s
pride about his intraethnic Romani identity (as Kovach (Burgudji), Arli and Djambas) and his
beliefs of its values and benefits as such.

His poem has an attractive effect not just to the audience i.e. readers of the mix dialect
group, but also to the audience i.e. readers of Kovach (Bugurdji) group, to the readers i.e.
audience of Arli group and also to readers i.e. audience of Djambas group as well. In that way his
intended effect to gather and attract as much as possible of Romani readership is fulfilled.The
effect to avoke the readers suspense and interes the poet has met in his choice to write about very
common, traditional theme while incorporating self-tragedy. Bringing himself and self-tragedy at
the front to readers i.e. audience increases dramatic effect which raised the readers’ interest and
intense emotions. It has developed the effect of self-counciousness especially while in oral
presentation, what is a great advantage of the poet who is in this case also professional actor, and
the effect of great emotional or physical disturbance prevails.

152
 Version AL3 (German)
Gebäre mich nicht Don’t give birth to me
German (AL3) English (NAL2)
1:Auf jenem Hügel// mähte der Vater Korn // 1:On an ordinated field //made father grain//
Für die Pferde anderer //in jenem Lager//// for the horses for other people// in that
2:Kam die Mutter nieder // während die camp////
Sonne auf die Erde brannte 2: and my mother was giving birth // while
3:Hätte ich vor meiner Geburt // Nur drei the sun scorched the earth
Worte gewusst // hätte ich gesagt // Gebäre 3:If I before my birth // just three words
mich nicht knew//I would had said// don’t give birth to
4:Für’s Leid bin ich geschaffen // Für die me
Fron grossgezogen //Altgeworden und 4: For suffering I was created // raised for
verbraucht work // old became and used
5:Wenn ich sterbe // Gebt den Blumen
Wasser // lasst das Gras wachsen 5: When I die //pour water on the flowers
6:Wenn ich sterbe //let the grass grow
7:lasst die Pferde laufen // Die Sterne sollen 6: When I die
meine Taube hüten // Goldene Fische soll sie 7:let the horses run // the stars should my
bekommen dove beware // golden fish should they get
8:Wenn ich sterbe //Vergießt keine Träne // 8: When I die // shed no tears // do not break
//Unterbrecht nicht meinen Traum //Erzählt my dreams//Do not speak about me.//
nicht von mir. // 9: When I die.
9:Wenn ich sterbe.
The English literal translation has relied on the German version.

The German self-translation of the poem is written in two stanzas. What is readily
apparent is that the words and lines are not structured like the Romani poem. In the German
version there are 25 lines, as opposed to 27 in the Romani version. In the German, the
punctuation mark [.] is placed twice at the very end of the poem; Erzählt nicht von mir. Wenn ich
sterbe.[Do not speak about me. When I die.] Some visual images and meanings are also
transformed. In one instance, there is inversion. Even though line 25 of the printed, published

153
German version ends with the clause Wenn ich sterbe [When I die], the actual line-by-line
correspondence between all the language versions means that the last sentence should read
Erzählt nicht von mir.[ Do not speak about me.] The structure of the German version is changed
because of the seeking equivalent effect of tragedy that should be the same and equal strong as in
original Romani version. The target German readers should experience this tragedy in their
language structure and culture to meet an understanding. The question of equivalence comes into
consideration as responsibility of the translator bound in issues from scopos (Flynn 2005, 32).
It is often maintained that a translation, however different from a source-text surface
structure, should have the “same” or nearly the same “effect” on the target-culture
recipients. The process, culture and skopos concepts “dethrone” not only such ideas as
fidelity and equivalence, but consequently also that of effect. “Effect” is one of those
scientifically incomparable and therefore interculturally unmeasurable concepts which
have hitherto blurred the idea of translating. (Vermeer 1998: 52)

The first stanza contains four lines: Auf jenem Hügel/ mähte der Vater Korn/ Für die
Pferde anderer / and in jenem Lager. Whereas the Romani version sets the scene on a mountain
(plajin), the self-translated German version sets the backdrop on a hill (Hügel). In the second
line, the father is no longer gathering hay (pus), as in the Romani version; rather, he is harvesting
grain (mähte der Vater Korn) for other people’s horses in the camp (Für die Pferde anderer / in
jenem Lager).
The second stanza starts with the lines Kam die Mutter nieder and während die Sonne auf
die Erde brannte. Both acts – the mother giving birth and the sun scorching the earth - are
reflected in all languages. The mother gives birth in the Romani, German and Serbian versions.
While most of the German poem adequately transfers the imagery and meaning we saw in
the Romani version, there are instances where some words express more power in German than
in Romani.This is evident, for example, in the lines Für’s Leid bin ich geschaffen/ Für die Fron
grossgezogen/ and Altgeworden und verbraucht (Uljum paripnaske/bariljum bugjake/ puriljum/
and hem nasavgiljum). The first line, which could be translated as “For sorrow I am made” in
English, is ‘equivalent in weight’ in German to the Romani. However, the other two are more
precise and carry more weight in German, which imports connotations of ‘working like a slave’
until one is utterly spent. The lack of Romani vocabulary and the use of simpler words in Romani
result in a certain lack of semantic clarity in the Romani version of the poem (especially

154
noticeable if the version were to be published alone), but subsequently is compensated for at
some points by the German in the self-translation.
The self-translation in German is also used by the poet to portray aspects of his
personality or life, and to express feelings that may not have otherwise been expressed. An
interesting example of this could be found in the transformation of the noun [č]irikle in Romani
to the word Taube in German. In the first case, the word refers to “birds” in general, preferably in
relation to small birds, and used here in the plural. However, in German, the word is used in the
singular and refers specifically to “dove”, a symbol for peace. The poet is searching for peace in
his inner self. The poem could ‘stand alone’ in its German version as an autonomous entity,
because of the clarity and precision of grammar and vocabulary conveyed by using the German
language. But in fact this ‘stand alone’ is applicable to German readers, but not for
bilingual/multilingual ‘Romani – German’ readers. Bilingual/multilingual Romani readers, in
depend which dialect the readers speak, would need the Romani original version as
complementary to German in order to get a complete understanding of the poem. Or, in other
words, for the Romani readers to whom the closest majority language and culture is German,
would accept this poem in consulting both, Romani and German versions.

Version AL4 (Serbian)

Nemoj me rađati Don’t give birth to me

Serbian (AL4) English (NAL3)
1:Na onoj njivi // gde konji prolaze // tata mi 1:On that field //where the horses were
žito za njih žanje.// Dok sunce sija // passing // my father reap grain for
2:a majka mi rađa u toj čergi // ispod koje them//Until the sun shining / 2: and my
zemlja peče mother was giving birth in a tent // under
which the earth burns
3:Te tri reči da sam ih samo // 3: These three words if I just// before I was
prije mog rođenja znao // rekao bih born knew// I would say
4:Ne rađaj me 4: Don’t give birth to me
Moja bit postala je breme // moje rastanje My existence turned into a burden // my
postao je rad // tako ostarih //i razboleh se growing up turned into work // in that way I

155
 got old //and I got sick
5:Ako umrem//zalijte cveće vodom //pustite 5: When I die //pour water on the flowers
nek trava raste //let the grass grow
6: Ako umrem 6: When I die
7:konje odvežite // i pustite neka jure //moju 7: horses untie// and let them run // my bird
pticu zvjezde neka čuvaju // nek joj zlatne may the stars protect // may they golden fish
ribice poklone give them as present
8: Ako umrem // nemojte suze liti //pustite 8: When I die // shed no tear // leave me
me samog // ne prekidajte mi san alone// do not tear my dream.

9:Ako umrem //o meni nemojte ni reč reći 9:When I die //about me do not any word tell
The English literal translation has relied on the Serbian version.

The Serbian self-translation of the poem is written in five stanzas. It is interesting to point
out the differences that emerge when comparing this third self-translation (i.e. AL4) to the the
second self-translation (AL3) and ‘original’ (AL1). Just as the visual imagery changed between
the Romani and German versions, so it also does in the Serbian version. In the first stanza, for
example, the poet’s father is in a field (Na onoj njivi) where horses are passing by (konji prolaze),
and the father is harvesting the grain for other people (žito za njih žanje). This image creates a
picture that is different from the ones presented in the other languages. It is also worth noting that
the image of the bird in Serbian has been retained in the singular (pticu), but not as a dove.
Rhythm and rhyme are likewise dealt with differently at times. While rhyme is present in
the Romani language version, it is not replicated in the German and Serbian self-translations.
There is, however, a certain rhythm that has been achieved by repeating one of the lines four
times, and this repetition occurs in all three language versions in the clause: Te muljum (Romani),
When ich sterbe (German), and Ako umrem (Serbian). Poetic structure is achieved differently, in
part by the visual creation of stanzas: one stanza in Romani; two stanzas in German; and five in
Serbian. All of them were decided on by the poet. The poet uses no literary devices like
personification, metaphor, or simile – neither in the Romani version, nor in the self-translations.
But, as noted earlier, the visual imagery created by the words differs when we compare AL1,
AL3 and AL4. The differences in self-translation are summarized in the table below:

156
 Romani German Serbian
1 stanza 2 stanzas 5 stanzas
mountain – no horses hill – no horses field – horses are passing
father cuts hay for other father harvest grain in that
father harvests grain for
people’s horses camp for other people’s
others
horses
my growing up turned into
I was raised on work for toil raised
work
I got old and sick become old and consumed
Birds dove bird

AL Versions (“Ma bijan man - Beni doğurma - Gebäre mich nicht - Nemoj me rađati -
Don’t Give Birth to Me”)
As already mentioned, I sent out a questionnaire to the poets whose poetry I have
analyzed. My intention was to know more about the details of their work procedures, their
motivation, inspiration and reasons for self-translating. Below is an excerpt received from the
poet Nedjo Osman:

H: Koji je motiv tvojih pjesama? H: What is the motive of your poems?

N: Tragično osećanje života, istina i N: The tragic sense of life, truth and love.
ljubav.
H: What did you want to say and to tell in
H: Šta si želio reći i poručiti u svojim your poems; what do you want to point
pjesmama; na šta ukazati? out or emphasize?
N: O sudbini Roma, o gorkom isustvu i o N: About the fate of Roma, about the
nadi koja se zove ljubav. bitter experience and about the hope that
is named love.
H: Da li si imao problema kod prijevoda i
koji su to problemi? H: Did you have problems while

157
 N: Nisam imao. translating and what were these problems?
N: I did not have.
H: Da li misliš da pjesme pisane na
romskom jeziku mogu prevoditi samo H: Do you think that the poems written in
Romi i zašto? Romani can be translated only by Roma
N: Pjesme na romski jezik mogu prevoditi and why?
samo oni koji znaju dobro romski,i oni N: The poems in Romani could only be
koji imaju dobar osećaj za poeziju. translated by those who know good
Romani, and who have a good sense for
H: Da li misliš da pjesme koje Romi pišu poetry.
na većinskim jezicima mogu samo oni
prevesti na romski? H: Do you think that the poems that Roma
N: Samo oni koji znaju dobro romski. write in majority languages can be
translated in Romani only by Roma
H: Da li si prevodio nekad pjesme svojih themselves?
kolega Roma na romski ili na neki od N: Just those who know good Romani.
većinskih jezika? Kakvo je tvoje iskustvo
po tom pitanju? H: Have you ever translated poems
N: Jesam, preveo sam pesme od Rajka written by your other Roma colleagues in
Djurića i Jovana Nikolića sa srpskog na Romani or in a majority language? What
romski jezik. Oni su dva razlicita pjesnika is your experience according to this
po sadrzaju i nacinu izrazavanja, ali question?
prevodjenje mi je činilo zadovoljstvo jer N: Yes, I’ve translated poems by Rajko
oboje cenim kao pjesnike. Djurić and Jovan Nikolić from Serbian to
Romani. They are two different poets in
content and in the way they express
themselves. I was satisfied to translate
because I appreciate both as poets.

According to Nedjo Osman, it is possible to achieve a good translation or self-translated

poem into and out of Romani only if the person knows Romani very well and has a keen sense of

158
poetry and poetic expression. In my opinion, it is not only necessary to have a very good
command of spoken and written Romani, but also a mastery of the other langugages being
translated and self-translated. These other languages may have an impact on the meaning and
expression of the poem, in single, double, or multiple versions. It is also vital to have knowledge
of the diverse Romani cultural differences and traditions. Beside that, as stated earlier, both
Romani and non-Romani readers should be taken into consideration as readership. Non-Romani
readers would accept poem in their self-translated forms as an original poem i.e. as a creative
work, but they would not pay attention to the Romani version except in cases when their interest
is awaken by a certain word and its meaning in Romani. The situation is different with Romani
readers. They would need, if they are not from the same dialect as the poet is, a complementary
version of the language and culture that is mentally and physically closest to their living,
educational and cultural conditions.

159
4.4 HEDINA TAHIROVIĆ-SIJERČIĆ
a. Biographical information and literary production
Hedina Tahirović-Sijerčić was born on 11 November 1960 in Sarajevo’s Romani mahala
Gorica, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. She received her journalism diploma from the 4-year
program at University of Sarajevo in 1985. In 1990 she graduated from the University of Tuzla
(BiH) with a Teacher’s diploma in elementary education. While living in Canada, in 2000 she
obtained her Certificate of Qualification from the Ontario College of Teachers. In 2012 she
obtained her Magister diploma from the Center for Interdisciplinary Postdiploma Studies –
Gender Studies at the University in Sarajevo (BiH). Her magister thesis title “Rodni Identiteti u
književnosti romskih autorica na prostorima bivše Jugoslavije [Gender identity in literature of
Romani women authors in former Yugoslavia]” was published in 2016 with the Federal Ministry
for Education and Science in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 2017 she co-edited with
Cynthia Levine-Rasky The Romani Women’s Anthology: Spectrum of the Blue Water published
by Inanna Publications and Education Inc. in Toronto, Canada.
Since January 2014 Tahirović-Sijerčić has been a Member of the Committee of Experts of
the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages for Bosnia and Herzegovina at the
Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France. From June 2011 to October 2013 she was coordinator
for Roma in BiH at the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees (MHRR) in Sarajevo. From
January 2012 to June 2014 she taught classes on Romani Language, Literature and Culture at the
University of Zagreb, Croatia.While living in Toronto, she was active at the newly created Roma
Community and Advocacy Centre (now Roma Cultural Centre) and coeditor-in-chief of the
magazine Romano Lil. From 1985-1992 she worked as editor-in-chief, announcer, moderator,
producer, writer, translator, editor and reporter for the radio and TV programs Lačho djive,
Romalen (Have a good day, Roma/people) and Malavipe (Meetings) in Sarajevo. Hedina writes
and speaks Bosnian (Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin), Romani, English and German.
Some of her published work as an author includes several academic papers, two
dictionaries: Gurbeti-English/English-Gurbeti (2011/2013); and Bosansko-romski i romsko-
bosanski rječnik / Bosnaki-Rromani thaj Rromani-Bosnaki alavari [Bosnian-Romani/Romani-
Bosnian Dictionary] (2010) and an autobiographical novella, Rom like Thunder, part of which
was published first in English (2011) and then fully in Bosnian as Rom k’o grom (2012). A series
of illustrated bilingual (English and Romani) stories for children published in Canada by Magoria

160
Books include: Fish/Macho (2011); Karankochi-Kochi (2010); Shtar Phrala / Four Brothers
(2010); How God made the Roma (2009); An unusual family (2009); and Romani prince Penga
(2009). She has published and self-translated folk tales, poetry, stories, and legends in Romani,
Bosnian, and English:
 Čuj, osjeti bol! / Ashun, hachar Dukh!(Collection of poems) in Bosnian
and Romani, KNS Sarajevo, BiH, 2010
 Romani Stories and Legends of the Gurbeti Roma (for adults), in English
and Romani, Magoria Books, Canada, 2009
 Stare romske bajke i priče (Old Romani legends and folktales) in Bosnian
and Romani, The Bosnian Word, BiH, 2008
 Dukh-Pain, poetry book, in Romani and English, Magoria Books, Canada,
2008
 Romany Legends, in English and German, Turnshare, London, Great
Britain, 2004

In addition to multiple co-authored literary publications, she has worked with media and
art. In 2011, the collective sound installation “Canada without shadows/Canada bizo učhalipe”
was exhibited at the Romani pavilion of the Venice biennale (La Biennale di Venezia) in Italy.
The exhibit was later shown at the National Museum of Contemporary Art in Bucharest,
Romania in 2013. Before the war in Bosnia, she was editor-in-chief of two documentary films,
Adjive Romen (Roma Today) and Karankoci-Koci, produced for Sarajevo TV in Bosnia and
Herzegovina (1989).
Tahirović-Sijerčić is also active as lecturer, trainer, chairperson, organizer of events,
editor, etc., and has had many years of Romani translation experience in various domains. These
include having translated recent official documents such as the Guide to Parliament (2009), the
Revised National Action Plan for Educational Needs for Roma in BiH (2010), and the Revised
Action Plan of BiH for Addressing Roma Issues in the Field of Employment, Housing, and
Healthcare. She has also translated theatrical pieces and films. In 2011, she served as reviewer of
the book Pravopis romskoga jezika (o čačolekhavno e rromane čhibako) [Orthography of the
Romani Language] authored by Rajko Djurić, and published by the "Michael Palov" College of
Professional Studies for Educators (Visoka škola strukovnih studija za vaspitače “Mihailo
Palov”) in Vrsac, Serbia.

161
 Her work has been acknowledged in several venues. In 2012 she received the Ferenc
Sztojka Award for her lifelong work in poetry and Romani language creativity. The award was
presented to her on the “World Day of the Rromani language”. In 2011 she received the
prestigious Freedom Award (Nagrada Sloboda) from the International Centre for Peace in
Sarajevo for the promotion and affirmation of human rights in BiH and the world. In 2010 she
was recognized for her literary work when she was awarded the prize for “literary creation and
best literary creative expression” from the cultural centre KNS in Sarajevo, and the international
“Golden Pen of Papusza” poetry prize from the Ethnographical Museum in Tarnow, Poland. And
in 2009, she received the prize for “best promoted work” at the 21 st Sarajevo Book Fair in Bosnia
and Herzegovina.

b. Analyses of Poem “Drabarni –Gatara”

Included within the corpus of Romani literature in the Balkans are her poems and self-
translations, i.e. authored by Hedina Tahirović-Sijerčić, which I will proceed to analyze here.
Two poems have been selected from this corpus; one makes use of rhyme and was written first in
Romani and then translated into Bosnian; the other is written in prosaic style and was written first
in Bosnian and then translated into Romani.
The fact that the “total number of pre-European lexical roots found in all dialects of
Romani put together is estimated at around 800” (Matras 2002, 21), at this point invited me to
arise the questions for Romani poets, writers and translators and myself: If you translate from a
Romani čhib which contains between 800-1400152 lexical roots into a language of exp. 50.000
roots, and you wish to be as precise as possible in your translation, what will happen? How to
translate from a language of exp. 50.000 lexical roots into Romani of 800-1400? How write and
create a poem and at the same way think about translation and self-translation? What kind and
which words to use and be able to transfer the same meaning into self-translation?
These questions are of crucial importance to Romani poets and writers, their writing and
especially their translations and self-translations.
152
The question on how many words Romani contains was anwered through a Romani scholar Ronald Lee by
Romani scholar Ian Hancock. There are as many as you want there to be. I suspect she means roots, and the way I'd
address that is add up all of the ones acquired before the Nakhipe, e.g. up to and including Byzantine Greek. My
estimate is about 1400. We can't include those acquired on the European side, because they were picked up
differently from place to place. There are about 800 that are Indian/Dardic, more than there are Anglo-Saxon roots
in modern English. (Email correspondence on 8.02.2016. between Ronald Lee, Ian Hanckok and Hedina Sijerčić.)

162
 The first poem for analysis is entitled Drabarni/Gatara/Fortune-Teller (Tahirović-
Sijerčić 2008, 24-25) and the second is entitled CV 6 (Tahirović-Sijerčić 2010, 25-28), in all
language versions.
My first language is Serbocroatian, now Bosnian. I am a Romani woman (Romni) of
Bosnian and Herzegovinian nationality. I was born in a Romani mahala but grew up speaking
Serbocroatian, as did many other Roma in my neighbourhood and in Bosnia and Herzegovina in
general. At school, I studied Serbocroatian, Bosnian, Russian, and German. At the age of 25, I
began to study Romani, involving revival of the passive Romani language knowledge which was
spoken in my family and in my neighbourhood, due to the need for Romani language radio and
TV programs at Radio-Television Sarajevo. I began to study English at age 37. I am multilingual.
I wrote the poem Drabarni first in Romani, in my Gurbeti dialect, rather than in Bosnian.
At the time I was preoccupied with survival, for myself and for my family, because of the war in
Bosnia. While reflecting on my situation, it came to mind how clever our Romnja, women, can be
when they need to survive. Thinking about it brought a smile to my face, and a better mood,
which I was sorely in need of. I constructed a visual image in my mind, and saw one of my good
friends, a Romni who earned her livelihood as a fortune-teller. In my vision, I could see her face
and body, and then I made eye contact. Feeling overjoyed ‘to be’ with someone who was one of
my own, I became happy, thinking of how she tells fortunes, and I wrote this poem.

Drabarni Gatara Fortune-Teller

Gurbeti Romani (AL1) Bosnian (AL2) English (NAL3)153
1.Ando fildzano me dikhav 1.U fildžan ti gledam 1.From inside this cup
Tuche baxt te vacharav. Sreću da ti phendam. I will tell of your luck.

2.Na dikh man dukhalo 2.Ne gledaj me tako tužno 2.Don't look at me so sad
Naj si sa dzungalo. Nije baš sve ružno. Things aren't so bad.

3.Hi man o choxanipe 3.Imam čudnu moć 3.I have some magic

153
I have reproduced the English self-translation version (AL3) that has already been published. The translation
strategy, as discussed in methodology chapter, has prioritized form (i.e. the rhyme scheme) over content. For the
purpose of analysis this version is denominated into NAL1, NAL2 and NAL3 version.

163
Me dikhav e dukhalipe. Trebaće ti pomoć. I see something tragic.

4.Kate si o mursh 4.Vidim muškarca kako stoji 4.There is a guy

Vov anel e dukhado brsh. I godinu bolnu ti kroji. He makes you cry.

5.Na dikh man dukhalo 5.Ne gledaj me tako tužno 5.Don't look so sad
Naj si sa dzungalo. Nije baš sve ružno. It isn't so bad.

6.Thov talo fildzano cira 6.Ispod fildžana malo para 6.Under the cup, just put
love stavi some money
Ka cherel pala nevo patave. I nova ljubav će da se pojavi. And it will work to bring a
new honey.
7.Ka peres ande kamlimata 7.Ti ćeš ga voljeti 7.You will fall in love
Vov ka avel sar ande A on će ti rob biti. He will be your slave.
phandimata.
8.Ispod fildžana zlatni prsten 8.Under the cup, put your
8.Thov talo fildzano stavi golden ring
sumnakuni angurusti Svadbeni cvijet biće ti u And you will marry him in the
Ka cherel tut abijavehchi glavi. spring.
luludji.
9.Vidim kočiju, bešiku i 9.I see a pram, a cradle, a toy
9.Dikhav e vordon, e kuna, dijete, A crow, another woman, and
e chavoro Crnu kokoš, drugu ženu i a boy.
Kali khanji, aver Rromni muškarca
thaj murshoro. Moj, lijepi cvijete! 10.I have some magic
I see something tragic.
10.Hi man o choxanipe 10.Imam čudnu moć
Me dikhav dukhalipe. Trebaće ti pomoć. 11.Don't look so sad
It isn't so bad.
11.Na dikh man dukhalo 11.Ne gledaj me tako tužno
Naj si sa dzungalo. Nije baš sve ružno. 12.Put your necklace under

164
 the cup
12.Thov talo fildzano 12.Ispod fildžana zlatni lanac And a Romani bird will
sumnakuni merikli stavi protect your luck.
Ka akharel tut Rromani Romska ptica pomoće ti
chirikli. glavi. 13.Press your fingers on the
bitch
13.Phajrar o naj prdal pe And things will go without a
kurva 13.Pritisni prstom preko hitch
Chichind e jakha kurve, All will work out as you wish.
E gindese del phaka. Zavori oči
I poželi nešto. 14.I see a foot, a dog, a boy
14.Dikhav e dzukel, e prno, Now you'll be reunited in joy.
e chavorro 14.Vidim psa, stopalo, dijete
Gova dzangljol-pe Ovo ti znači: sretno i
jekhethane, gugloro. zajedno, moj cvijete!
The English translation has relied on the Romani and Bosnian versions.

Version AL1 (Gurbeti Romani)

Drabarni Fortune-Teller

Gurbeti Romani (AL1) English (NAL1)

1.Ando fildzano me dikhav 1.In the cup I look
Tuche baxt te vacharav. To you the luck to say.

2.Na dikh man dukhalo 2.Don't look at me sad

Naj si sa dzungalo. It isn´t all bad.

3.Hi man o choxanipe 3.I have magic

Me dikhav e dukhalipe. I see tragic.

165
4.Kate si o mursh 4.There is a man
Vov anel e dukhado brsh. He brings painful year.

5.Na dikh man dukhalo 5.Don't look at me sad

Naj si sa dzungalo. It isn't all bad.

6.Thov talo fildzano cira love 6.Put under the little cup a little bit of money
Ka cherel pala nevo patave. It will work for new bed.

7.Ka peres ande kamlimata 7.You will fall in love

Vov ka avel sar ande phandimata. He will be like in the prison.

8.Thov talo fildzano sumnakuni angurusti 8.Put under the cup golden ring
Ka cherel tut abijavehchi luludji. It will make for you wedding flower.

9.Dikhav e vordon, e kuna, e chavoro 9.I see a pram, a cradle, a small child
Kali khanji, aver Rromni thaj murshoro. A black crow, another woman and a boy.

10.Hi man o choxanipe 10.I have some magic

Me dikhav dukhalipe. I see tragic.

11.Na dikh man dukhalo 11.Don't look at me sad

Naj si sa dzungalo. It isn't all bad.

12.Thov talo fildzano sumnakuni merikli 12.Put under the small cup your necklace
Ka akharel tut Rromani chirikli. It will protect you Rromani bird.

13.Phajrar o naj prdal pe kurva 13.Press finger on the bitch

Chichind e jakha Close your eyes
E gindese del phaka. To your mind give the wings.

166
 14.Dikhav e dzukel, e prno, e chavorro 14.I see a dog, a foot, a small child

Gova dzangljol-pe jekhethane, gugloro. It means together, in sweetness .

The English literal translation has relied on the Romani version.

This poem was written in 1998. It has 14 stanzas, all of which are written in rhyme.
Because I was living in Canada at the time, the Romani orthography of the poem is based on the
English system154. Thus, sh, ch, dz, zh are used to designate some sounds, rather than š, ć, č, dž, ž,
which is the orthography I now use and which I used before going to Canada.It is also worth
noting that when a word in Gurbeti Romani is not available to me, I will try first to see if the
word exists in Arli Romani or in another dialect. In this way I try to avoid using the majority
contact language as much as possible. Words which create the rhymes are culturally and
emotionally coloured with the specific expressions used by Romani fortune tellers of the Gurbeti
origin. They produce symbols of the words (exp. vordon, kuna, chavoro, khanji, Rromni,
murshoro) and this style of speech is also used in their everyday communication. Creating life
story, in the poem vordon symbolizes home, kuna a child which is on the way (the pregnancy is
possible), chavoro means a boy. This luck interrupts an appearance of kali khanji which
symbolizes infelicity, Rromni as a trouble because she is not the only one to her love, and
murshoro symbolizes existence of a small boy that her love has with the other woman.
Ka cherel pala nevo patave.
Von ka avel sar ande phandimata.
Ka cherel tut abijavehchi luludji.
Ka akharel tut Rromani chirikli.
E gindese del phaka.

Very interesting in the case of Čergaš Gurbeti, and their fortune tellers also, is that they very
much love to use the diminish words, as in the poem used chavoro155, murshoro, gugloro.
Deminutives in Romani are build adding the suffix “ro” and “rro”.156 In the way they

154
See Chapter II on the Romani language.
155
In the poem I used both versions of deminutive chavoro and chavorro.
156
In everyday communication speakers also use deminutives adding suffixes from the contact language
(Serbocroatian) which diminutive has also endings “ici”/”ica” creating own specific deminutives (patavici,

167
communicate I could easily recognize if they are fortune tellers or not, and if the fortune-telling is
their occupation.
Fortune-telling – the theme of the poem – is one of the many traditional occupations157
that Romani people have used for making their living. The poem follows the rhythm of the steps
enacted by the fortune-teller as she proceeds to tell the woman-client her fortune. The first
stanzes reflect the phase of inviting and enticing the passerby to stop and have her fortune read.
Later, the coffee cup becomes the object which helps her to get some money, a golden ring, and a
necklace. The process of fortune-telling ends with the teller pressing her finger into the dry coffee
grounds158 in the cup so that a visible fingerprint remains. Repeating the pressing of finger creates another
fingerprint, a new symbol.
By using the first person and second person singular, ‘Me/I’ and ‘Tu/you’, the poem
establishes a direct connection with the reader. The reader becomes an implied character, one
whose fortune is being told. There is a mirror effect between the voice of the poet and the voice
of the character of the fortune-teller (‘Me/I’) whose acts and words are being presented by the
poet. The strategy of looking into the cup and telling a fortune is integrated as a literary device
within the poem. In so doing, it serves to create a story, and to invite the reader to perhaps
implicate him or herself in the story, or at the very least to enjoy its telling.
The rhyme carries out some important functions in this poem. It sets and maintains the
tone of the poem as light-hearted and happy. It keeps the rhythm and beat of the poem intact, and
in fact serves as a kind of storytelling technique by its pacing mechanism. The story is kept going
not only by the sequence of events, symbolized by the diverse images perceived by the fortune-
teller in the coffee grounds, and the placing of the items of worth by the woman under the cup,
but also by the deliberate continual beat of the rhyme. The beat of the rhyme is made through the
words: dikhav-vacharav, dukhalo-dzungalo, choxanipe-dukhalipe, mursh-brsh, love-patave,
kamlimata-phandimata, angrusti-luludji, chavoro-murshoro, merikli-chirikli, jakha-phaka,
chavorro-gugloro.

chiriklica, etc.). According to the way they use deminutives it is possible, beside other language specifities,
recognize identity of the Romani speaker.
157
Musicians, black-smiths, animal trainers, coppersmiths, horse dealers etc.
158
The dry coffee grounds are known as toz in Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian.

168
 Version AL2 (Bosnian)
Gatara Fortune-Teller
Bosnian (AL2) English (NAL2)
1.U fildžan ti gledam 1.In small cup I look for you
Sreću da ti phendam. Luck to tell you.

2.Ne gledaj me tako tužno 2.Don't look at me so sad

Nije baš sve ružno. It is not all ugly.

3.Imam čudnu moć 3.I have strange power

Trebaće ti pomoć. You will need help.

4.Vidim muškarca kako stoji 4.I see a man standing

I godinu bolnu ti kroji. And a year painful to you tailors.

5.Ne gledaj me tako tužno 5.Don't look at me so sad

Nije baš sve ružno. It isn't all bad.

6.Ispod fildžana malo para stavi 6.Under the small cup little bit money put
I nova ljubav će da se pojavi. And new love will appear.

7.Ti ćeš ga voljeti 7.You will love him

A on će ti rob biti. And he will be your slave.

8.Ispod fildžana zlatni prsten stavi 8.Under the small cup golden ring put
Svadbeni cvijet biće ti u glavi. Wedding flower will be in your head.

9.Vidim kočiju, bešiku i dijete, 9.I see a pram, a cradle and child,
Crnu kokoš, drugu ženu i muškarca A crow, another woman, and a man.
Moj lijepi cvijete! My beautiful flower!

169
10.Imam čudnu moć 10.I have strange power
Trebaće ti pomoć. You will need help.

11.Ne gledaj me tako tužno 11.Don't look at me so sad

Nije baš sve ružno. It isn't all ugly.

12.Ispod fildžana zlatni lanac stavi 12. Under the small cup golden necklace put
Romska ptica pomoće ti glavi. Romani bird will help to your head.

13.Pritisni prstom preko kurve, 13.Press your finger over bitch,

Zavori oči Close eyes
I poželi nešto. And wish something.

14.Vidim psa, stopalo, dijete 14.I see a dog, a foot, a child

Ovo ti znači: sretno i zajedno, moj cvijete! This means: lucky and together, my flower!

The English literal translation has relied on the Bosnian version.

The self-translation into Bosnian (and English) also contains 14 stanzas. The 13 th stanza is
the only stanza in Bosnian which contains no rhyme. Likewise in the English self-translation, the
rhyme for this stanza is only just partially met.159 In self-translating this poem, the struggle was to
retain as much of the meaning as possible from the Romani version but also to give equal
emphasis to the rhyme and beat of the story being told. While analysing this poem, again, came
to my mind the other occasional translations of this stanze but in not one I met the rhyme, but the
meaning.160
In the Bosnian self-translation a word-by-word strategy was often preferable so that the
exact meaning of the original in Romani would not be lost. This meant working with different
translation options and strategies, some of which are unique due to Romani being a contact
language. For example, in both the Romani and Bosnian versions of the 13th stanza, the noun

159
Occasional reference is made here to the English translation of this poem, which has already been published.
160
Preko kurve prst otisni,/Sklopi oči/I na želju pomisli. Or Otisni prst preko kurve/Zaklopi oči/I pomisli na želju.

170
kurva (‘bitch’) has the same use and meaning. There are other words in Romani that could have
been used for this meaning. However, this word was selected because of its frequent use among
Roma, and for the fact that it is used in all the other languages within former Yugoslavia. Also
the noun in Romani fildzano is in Bosnian fildžan (‘coffee cup’) and in Romani I am not aware of
the other word used for this meaning.
In another case, it is a matter of rhyme. In the first stanza of the poem, rhyme is achieved
in the Romani version by using the words dikhav and vacharav. The Bosnian version uses the
verbs gledam and phendam. Phenav (speak), conjugated here as phendam, is a Romani verb.
Here, the fact that semantically the lines U fildžan ti gledam // Sreću da ti could be understood
without ending with phendam allows for the possibility of the Romani verb, rather than Bosnian
verb, to be used. Advantage of this borrowing from AL1 to AL2 is in the fact that the word itself
has a chance of being understood by speakers of the local languages (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian,
Montenegrin). Furthermore, the verb is conjugated according to Bosnian verb endings (in the first
person). This type of possibility, i.e. using Romani words that would be understood by local
language readers of the Bosnian language poem, constitutes one option or strategy that a Romani
self-translator can use. It helps confer a certain Romani quality to the translated poem. In this
particular case it is interesting to note how the Romani verb phenav- is used in connection with
the speaker, the implied narrator, i.e. the Romani fortune-teller.

Versions AL1, AL2 and AL3 (English) “Drabarni/Gatara/Fortune-teller”

Taking addventage of being a self-translator and possibility to create my poem in

translation, in the third stanza Hi man o choxanipe/Me dikhav e dukhalipe. I changed the wording
of the Romani clause Me dikhav e dukhalipe [word-by-word translation in Bosnian shoud be Ja
vidim tugu and in English ‘I see sorrow’]. If I used word-by-word translation I would not reach
the rhyme in Bosnian. So, I used wording “Trebaće ti pomoć” [You will need a help] which also
refers to the need to help somebody in sorrow and problems. English translation is “I see
something tragic” instead of word-by-word translation “I see sorrow”. These changes are made
because of creating rhyme in self-translation but at the some time it is worded in that way that the
meaning of the poem and of the source text is not lost.

Imam čudnu moć/ Trebaće ti pomoć.

I have some magic/I see something tragic.

171
The same problems occurred also in self translation of the other stanzas.
Problem that I faced with translation is that the first lines of the stanzas were possible to
translate using the strategy word-by-word from Romani. In the second lines in translation in
Bosnian I created the poem in the way that the meaning of the source text remains, and that also
culturally muches with the meaning in Romani. Difficulties I faced in translation from Romani
into Bosnian was caused, firstly, because of unequal fond of vocabulary of Romani and Bosnian
(see methodology and theory chapter) and secondly, I had to be very creative and knowledgible
in Bosnian to translate my poem in Bosnian in order to find in Bosnian the most appropriate
meaning of the Romani words and expressions in poem which was written in a simple spoken
Romani at the same time thinking that the process of translating will “bring the target text into
line with a particular model and hence a particular correctness notion, and in so doing secure
social acceptance, even acclaim” (Hermans 1991, 166). Bringing together theoretical and
practical experiences in translation what was also the point of the scholars of Manipulation
School or Group161, the assertion that “all translation implies a degree of manipulation of the
source text for a certain purpose” (Hermans 1985, 11) convinced me also in the case of Romani
translation.
The fourth stanza in Romani: Kate si o mursh/Vov anel e dukhado brsh in Bosnian
translation

Vidim muškarca kako stoji/I godinu bolnu ti kroji.

There is a guy/He makes you cry.

161
“A term used by some to refer to the group of scholars associated with a particular approach to the study of
translated literature. First coined as a word-play (Lambert 1991, 33), it is now used almost as a nickname; however,
the school’s own preferred terms are either TRANSLATION STUDIES or the Low Countries group, although this
latter term is misleading to the extent that the group includes scholars from countries other than Belgium and the
Netherlands, most notably former Czechoslovakia and Israel.[...] Their basic approach thus contrasts with that of the
SCIENCE OF TRANSLATION, firstly since their starting-point is “not intended equivalence but admitted
manipulation” (Snell-Hornby 1988/1995:22), and secondly because of their concentration on literary rather than
technical translation. The group’s most important texts include Even-Zohar (1990), Hermans (1985), Holmes et al.
(1978), Holmes (1988), van Leuven-Zwart & Naaijkens (1991) and Toury (1980 & 1995), while their most important
contributions to the discipline are probably the use of a TARGET TEXTORIENTED approach, and the notions of
NORMS, REWRITING and the literary POLYSYSTEM. Their basic approach thus contrasts with that of the
SCIENCE OF TRANSLATION, firstly since their starting-point is “not intended equivalence but admitted
manipulation” (Snell-Hornby 1988/1995:22), and secondly because of their concentration on literary rather than
technical translation. The group’s most important texts include Even-Zohar (1990), Hermans (1985), Holmes et al.
(1978), Holmes (1988), van Leuven-Zwart & Naaijkens (1991) and Toury (1980 & 1995), while their most important
contributions to the discipline are probably the use of a TARGET TEXTORIENTED approach, and the notions of
NORMS, REWRITING and the literary POLYSYSTEM.” (Shuttleworth and Cowie 2014).

172
 was not possible to translate by the word-by-word strategy in Bosnian because this
strategy brings out the words without any poetic meaning: “Ovdje je muškarac/on donosi bolnu
godinu [There is a man/he brings painful year].” Reading translation in that way the Romani
source poem would not be understood and the meaning in Romani would be vulgarized in
translation. Therefore, I used my combined knowledge of both languages and created translation
from Romani into proper Bosnian not loosing the exact meaing of myself and not loosing the
rhyme with the lines:

Vidim muškarca kako stoji/I godinu bolnu ti kroji.

Of course, English word-by-word translation, “There is a man/he brings painful year.” would
work in the same way like Bosnian and I used, for myself, the most appropriate words to describe
this lines, but again taking care of meaning of the source text and rhyme:

There is a guy/He makes you cry.

Following Manipulation Group scholars and claim that

[t]he discipline generally, but the descriptive school in particular, urgently needs
to take account of developments in some of the more vigorous intellectual and
social movements of our time, including gender studies, post-structuralism,
postcolonial and cultural studies, and the new interdisciplinarity of human
sciences. (Hermans 1999, 159–60)

brought me to Lefevre and his definition of translation as “type of rewriting which is able
to project the image of an author and/or those works beyond the boundaries of their culture of
origin” (Lefevre 1992a, 9). Thinking about the Romani culture beyond the Romani boundaries I
translated my poem Drabarni/Gatara/Fortune-teller. The symbols used in Romani to describe
situations while fortune-telling also use the Bosnian non-Romani women and men who are
fortune-telling and their meaning is the same (cradle, woman, man, boy, crow, dog, foot, bird
etc.)
While translating into Bosnian I tried also to use the Bosnian language so that the Romani
readers reading Bosnian version could easy understand the meaning in Romani they do not know
or they forgot, and also that Bosnian readers comparing the Romani text with Bosnian could have
an easily approach if decide to learn Romani. The same thoughts were in my mind while

173
translating into English. As I mentioned in previous text, Romani is very rich with the loanwords
and neologisms of the contact languages. I used different Romani dictionaries to avoid it, and I
used when needed the Romani vocabulary in other dialects spoken in region of the Western
Balkans.

c. Analyses of Poem “CV 6 – CV 6”

The poem CV6 (Tahirović-Sijerčić 2010) represents a different case than those previously
analyzed in this chapter. Whereas the poems by Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović, Nedjo Osman, Mehmed-
Meho Saćip, and previous one by Hedina Tahirović-Sijerčić, were all examples of poems that
were written in Romani and self-translated into second and third languages, this poem is an
example of the reverse direction: into Romani. The reason why I chose reverse direction was
because many of my poems I wrote first in Bosnian and then self-translated into Romani,
following a natural way of the written reception of the languages I have been usig in my writing.
CV6 was inspired while I was reading the book Zovem se Crveno by Orhan Pamuk162,
which was translated from Turkish into Serbian by Ivan Panović. My reflections on the soul and
the complexity of conception led me to the idea of thinking about Roma and their soul’s mystic
traveling into the other world after physical death. Where might they be buried? Where could
their souls find peace? The destiny of many Roma to never find their place in life inspired me to
think about their place once their physical beings have been converted into souls only. On a
personal level, I am satisfied and pleased that through this poem I was able to speak about this
problem of my people, and to give voice so that one of these unfortunate souls could speak out,
and hopefully find its peace.

CV 6 CV 6 CV 6
Bosnian (AL1) Gurbeti Romani (AL2) English (NAL3)
Ime mi je bilo Mehmed. Rodio Mo anav sasa Mehmed. My name was Mehmed. I
sam se i živio sam u Bosni. Bijandilem thaj dzivisardem ande was born and I lived in
Kucao sam kazane i kotlove Bosna. Cherdem xarkumache Bosnia. I tapped cauldrons
od bakra. Bio sam ostario. sheja, kazane thaj kotlove. and copperboilers. I was

162
Orhan Pamuk is a Nobel Prize-winning Turkish novelist. The novel Benim Adım Kırmızı (My Name is Red) was
published in 1998.

174
Bilo mi je pedeset i pet Phurisardem. Seha man pinda getting old. I was fifty-five
godina. thaj pandz brsh. years.

Umro sam. Mulisardem. I died.

Htjeli su da me sahrane a oni Amare mangle te praxosaren They tried to buryme, but it
su branili. Nema mjesta na man, von na dije. Nane o than pe wasn’t allowed. There is no
njihovom groblju. U njihovoj lengi limori. Ande lengi kali place in theircemetery. In
crnoj zemlji. Tijelo mi se phuv. Mrno trupo astarda te their black earth. My body
počelo raspadati. Nakon 15 rispisarel. Athoska 15 djive von began to crumble. After 15
dana su odobrili komad crne dije mandje kotor kale phuvjako. days they allowed me a
zemlje. Iz higijenskih razloga. Dure e cahretar. Pe thaneste kaj piece of black earth. For
Daleko od čerge. Na mjestu khonik nashti te rodel man. Pe hygienic reasons. Far away
gdje me niko neće naći. Na thaneste kaj knonik nashti te from the tent. In a place
mjestu gdje mi niko neće doći. dikhel man. where no one will findme.
At the place where no one
Tijelo mi se rasulo i spojilo sa Mrno trupo raspisarda thaj will visit me.
zemljom. pharuvda ande kali phuv.
My body scattered and
Sada se zovem Duša. Letim Akana akharav Odji. Ujrav pe merged with the earth.
spektrom plavih nijansi plavo delesko duripeste.
nebeskog prostranstva. Now, my name is Soul. I fly
Rodav miro. on the range of the blue
Tražim mir. shades of sky.
Iklav po nuvera. Paruvav nuvera
Na oblacima jašem. Mijenjam sar chindile grasta. Brshind I seek peace.
oblake kao umorne konje. thovel mo muj. Bahval vahcarel
Kiša me umiva. Vjetar me mansa. Devlehchi jag del mandje I ride on the clouds. I
razgovara. Munja me snagom zuralipe. Ujrav pe plavo delesko exchange the clouds as I
napaja. Letim spektrom plavih duripeste. Paruvav nuvera sar would tired horses. Rain
nijansi nebeskog prostranstva. chindile grasta. Kham cherel washes my face. Wind talks

175
Mijenjam oblake kao umorne mandje sumnakuno drom koring to me. Lightning charges me
konje. Sunce mi gradi zlaćanu Indija. Talo nuvera mothovel pes with power. I fly on the
stazu ka Indiji. Indija. range of the blue shades of
Ispod oblaka se nazire Indija. sky. I exchange the clouds as
Izdrav. Huljardem ande tired horses. The sun builds
Drhtim. Sjahao sam u dolinu Gangeski xar. Grast boldisarada for me a golden path to
Ganga. Konj se vratio spektru e plave delese. India. Below the clouds is
plavih nijansi neba. Me boldisardem e plave pajese. the silhouette of India.
Ja se vratio spektru plavih
nijansi vode. I'm shivering. I dismounted
in the valley of the Ganges.
The horse returned to the
spectrum of the blue sky. I
returned to the spectrum of
the blue water.

The English translation has relied on the Bosnian and Romani versions.

Version AL1 (Bosnian)

CV 6 CV 6
Bosnian (AL1) English (NAL1)
Ime mi je bilo Mehmed. Rodio sam se i živio My name was Mehmed. I was born and I lived
sam u Bosni. Kucao sam kazane i kotlove od in Bosnia. I tapped cauldrons and
bakra. Bio sam ostario. Bilo mi je pedeset i pet copperboilers. I was getting old. I was fifty-five
godina. years.

Umro sam. I died.

Htjeli su da me sahrane a oni su branili. Nema They tried to buryme, but it wasn’t allowed.
mjesta na njihovom groblju. U njihovoj crnoj There is no place on their cemetery. On their

176
zemlji. Tijelo mi se počelo raspadati. Nakon 15 black earth. My body began to crumble. After
dana su odobrili komad crne zemlje. Iz 15 days they allowed me a piece of black earth.
higijenskih razloga. Daleko od čerge. Na For hygienic reasons. Far away from the tent.
mjestu gdje me niko neće naći. Na mjestu gdje In a place where no one will findme. At the
mi niko neće doći. place where no one will visit me.

Tijelo mi se rasulo i spojilo sa zemljom. My body scattered and merged with the earth.

Sada se zovem Duša. Letim spektrom plavih Now, my name is Soul. I fly on the range of the
nijansi nebeskog prostranstva. blue shades of sky.

Tražim mir. I seek peace.

Na oblacima jašem. Mijenjam oblake kao I ride on the clouds. I exchange the clouds as
umorne konje. Kiša me umiva. Vjetar me tired horses. Rain washes my face. Wind talks
razgovara. Munja me snagom napaja. Letim to me. Lightning charges me with power. I fly
spektrom plavih nijansi nebeskog prostranstva. on the range of the blue shades of sky. I
Mijenjam oblake kao umorne konje. Sunce mi exchange the clouds as tired horses. The sun
gradi zlaćanu stazu ka Indiji. builds for me a golden path to India. Below the
Ispod oblaka se nazire Indija. clouds is the silhouette of India.

Drhtim. Sjahao sam u dolinu Ganga. Konj se I'm shivering. I dismounted in the valley of the
vratio spektru plavih nijansi neba. Ganges. The horse returned to the spectrum of
Ja se vratio spektru plavih nijansi vode. the blue sky. I returned to the spectrum of the
blue water.

The English literal translation has relied on the Bosnian version.

The construction of the meaning and ideas is contained in 32 sentences. There is clarity of
meaning and expression in the original Bosnian language, in particular due to the short sentences
that speak directly to the readers. Each sentence encapsulates its own rhythm, and is meant to

177
pause naturally for those who read and listen, to give them a moment to ponder the meaning of
the line. My intention was to draw attention, clearly and concisely, to the problem that some of
my people still suffer.
While writing this ‘prose-poem’ my intention was to create semantically very simple and
short sentences in simple words, which are possible easily to translate in Romani. Directness in
narration echoes very strong emotions. These emotions were possible to translate and not to lose
the power and the rhythm. The soul confession of a Rom Mehmed turned into a silent scream for
the fate of my people. In the poem are presented the following problems: rapid aging, short life,
early dying;
Bio sam ostario. Bilo mi je pedeset i pet godina. Umro sam.
I was getting old. I was fifty-five years. I died.
identity, human rights, funeral, segregation, fear of estrangement from own
people;
Htjeli su da me sahrane a oni su branili. Nema mjesta na njihovom groblju. [...]
Daleko od čerge.
They tried to bury me, but it wasn’t allowed. There is no place in their cemetery.
[...] Far away from the tent.
change of identity through personal name, search for peace, return to origin;
Sad se zovem Duša. [...]Tražim mir. [...]Ja se vratio spektru plavih nijansi vode.
Now, my name is Soul. [...] I seek peace. [...] I returned to the spectrum of the blue
water.

Version AL2 (Gurbeti Romani)

CV 6 CV 6
Gurbeti Romani (AL2) English (NAL3)
Mo anav sasa Mehmed. Bijandilem thaj My name was Mehmed. I was born and I
dzivisardem ande Bosna. Cherdem xarkumache lived in Bosnia. I tapped cauldrons and
sheja, kazane thaj kotlove. Phurisardem. Seha copper boilers. I was old. I was fifty-five
man pinda thaj pandz brsh. years.

Mulisardem. I died.

Amare mangle te praxosaren man, von na dije. Ours tried to bury me, they didn’t allowed.

178
Nane o than pe lengi limori. Ande lengi kali No place in their cemetery. In their black
phuv. Mrno trupo astarda te rispisarel. Athoska earth. My body began to crumble. After 15
15 djive von dije mandje kotor kale phuvjako. days they allowed me a piece of black earth.
Dure e cahretar. Pe thaneste kaj khonik nashti te Far away from the tent. In a place where no
rodel man. Pe thaneste kaj knonik nashti te one will search for me. At the place where no
dikhel man. one will see me.

Mrno trupo raspisarda thaj pharuvda ande kali My body scattered and merged in the black
phuv. earth.

Akana akharav Odji. Ujrav pe plavo delesko Now, my name is Soul. I fly on the blue sky’s
duripeste. range.

Rodav miro. I seek peace.

Iklav po nuvera. Paruvav nuvera sar chindile I ride on the clouds. I exchange the clouds as
grasta. Brshind thovel mo muj. Bahval vahcarel tired horses. Rain washes my face. Wind talks
mansa. Devlehchi jag del mandje zuralipe. Ujrav to me. God’s fire gives me power. I fly on the
pe plavo delesko duripeste. Paruvav nuvera sar blue sky’s range. I exchange the clouds as
chindile grasta. Kham cherel mandje sumnakuno tired horses. The sun builds for me a golden
drom koring Indija. Talo nuvera mothovel pes path toward India. Below the clouds displays
Indija. India.

Izdrav. Huljardem ande Gangeski xar. Grast I'm shivering. I dismounted in the valley of
boldisarada e plave delese. the Ganges. The horse returned to the blue
Me boldisardem e plave pajese. sky. I returned to the blue water.

The English literal translation has relied on the Romani version.

Self-translating this ‘prose-poem’ into Romani was not difficult at all due to the directness
and clarity of the original Bosnian. However, I reflected most on language with regard to certain

179
vocabulary. For example, I decided to use the words kazane i kotlove od bakra in Romani self-
translation as loanwords (xarkumache sheja, kazane thaj kotlove) not because I do not know
these words but because they would resonate in certain ways. For Roma reading or listening to
the poem, these words were used more concretely to invite them to stop and think. They were
used provocatively, to provoke a reaction so they might approach me to ask why I did not use the
Romani words, i.e. xarkumache kajve thaj kajvice. Through the Romani translation, I hoped to
awaken Roma readers or interlocutors, so they might start to think about their own language. At
the same time I wished for non-Romani speakers looking at the Romani translation to be aware
that we use the same language and that we have share some things in common. Finally, I felt that
by self-translating this poem I would render the original Bosnian ‘compatible’ with the Romani,
not due to an incomplete expression of meaning but for those who might wish to compare the two
languages and in so doing, learn Romani.
The Romani self-translation was bound in 31 sentences, with each sentence consecutively
creating the life story of a Rom. In the second self-translation in English, the version reached a
total of 32 sentences. Because of the clarity in both languages, each poem can be read and
understood independently and could even be published separately.

Versions AL1 and AL2 (“CV 6 – CV 6”)

In reading this ‘prose-poem’, readers can visually build the pictures and imagery depicted
in the poem. The accompanying rhythm is expressed through the use of the short sentences. The
life story of Mehmed’s soul brings the reader quickly to the story of his past, recounted in only
four sentences of the first ‘paragraph – stanza’. The story is built on one short sentence from the
verb conjugation Mulisardem [I died.], and from there Mehmed’s soul starts his journey and story
with the problem of entombment. The Romani self-translation “Amare mangle te praxosaren
man, von na dije.” differs from its English counterpart in the use of of the pronoun “our” [Amare]
which has the effect of bringing belongings and identity to those who are Ours, and who could
take care of the funeral arrangements. In the English version I use the pronoun “they” to make
readers think about who should take care about the Roma’s funeral. In the Bosnian original, there
is no use of pronoun, but the verb conjugation – the second person plural in the past tense - lets
readers pursue a similar line of questioning: who tried to bury him, or Roma, or the others?

180
 Mehmed’s body turns into a Soul, which is announced in the sentence constructed from
the verb and noun (predicate and subject) Rodav miro [I seek my peace], or Tražim mir in
Bosnian. The noun miro in Romani is a loanword from Bosnian [mir] which is a word used by all
Roma in the region of former Yugoslavia and is used as a loanword in many Romani groups as
their own word. The Romani word does not exactly exist but it is possible to create it by using
other Romani words like lačhipe [goodness, kindliness]. The same situation occurs with regard to
the word plavo [blue] which can be used in Romani as a loanword from the regional languages
[modro] or by using the word in Romani [vunetipe] (Uhlik 1983, 256) which means blue and
blueness. However, in this case Roma would not understand to which colour the word refers, or
even if the word is used in reference to any colour at all.
After the words Rodav miro [I seek my peace], the “prose-poem” starts to build a series of
personifications and metaphors throughout the following nine sentences, creating visual images
that can be seen and found only in legends. In returning to the old legends of his own people, his
soul is searching for its origin. Assisted with this imagery [nuvera, brshind, bahval, devlehchi
jag, kham] the soul is finally able to reach India, and it finds its peace in the spectrum of the blue
water of the Ganges [ande Gangeski xar, e plave pajeste]. The symbolism of the water, and
especially the specific waters of the Ganges, means that the soul has found its peace in its identity
with his own people. The tone of this “prose-poem” is one of disappointment, nonetheless, sad
and nostalgic. The search for being accepted as a human being in many cases leaves many souls
in a state of eternal wandering.

Versions AL1 and AL2 (A Romani Poet-Literary Critic’s overall analysis of the poems
“Drabarni-Gatara” and “CV 6-CV 6”)

Correspondence on 4.08.2015 with Romani author Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović in the role of literary
critic

Pjesnički izraz ti je veoma diciplinovan i Your poetic expression is very disciplined and has
poetika ima mirni tok, naizgled, ali dubljom a regular flow, but it seems, upon deeper analysis
analizom postavljaš odredjene zamke iz oblasti that you put certain traps from the field of
mističnog i, da budem smio, iz teozofskog. Ovo mysticism and, if I may be so bold, from
se osobito odnosi na tvoju poeziju u prozi pod Theosophy. This applies particularly to your poetry
naslovom CV-6. Ono što je skrito izmedju in prose entitled CV-6. What is hidden in the short

181
kratkih stihova, u poetskoj prozi lebdi iznad verses is poetic prose hovering over the text like
teksta kao nešto što se samo da naslutiti, kao something that can only be as anticipated, as
očekivana kiša iz vedrog neba. Upravo taj expected as rain out of the blue sky. This fine
dodir izmedju mistike i realnosti kompenzuje line between mysticism and reality collects the
energetsku stvarnost kreativnosti koju želiš da energy of creativity that you want to give life to
oživiš kroz riječ, bez obzira da li je through the word, whether or not it gets
ukomponovana u okvire stihovnog konstrukta ili incorporated into the framework of a poetic
je zaleprśana u proznoj slobodi. construct or it flutters about in the freedom of
prose.

Posebnost romskog prevoda jeste što ima The specificity of the Romani translation is that it
sopstvenu strukturu i ritam prenosa misli sa has its own structure and rhythm from the transfer
bosanskog, a zbog svojstvene problematike of thoughts from Bosnian. Because of the general
izražajne suženosti, nemoguće je ostvariti problematic of the narrow capability of expression
direktan prevod, a da se misao i ideja ne razvije in Romani, it is impossible to carry out direct
na neki novi uzbudljiviji ili precizniji, a da translation. But the thought and idea transferred in
kažem nekada i suženiji način. Upravo ta translation emerge as something new, exciting and
precise. This opens up the possibility of a new
čistoća misli koja je uslovljena nedostatkom
poetics of translation, [i.e. whether in the direction
kapaciteta romskog jezika generalno, stvara
of funneling words (in thought, spoken, or written
novu idejnost u poetici prevodjenja ideje. Zato
word) from a majority language into a narrower
se oseća dvostruko pjevanja tvoje poetike na
recipient like Romani, or in the opposite direction,
dva jezika, paralelno egzistirajuća. of opening up to the potential of more words to
express oneself]. This ‘pure thought’, which is
conditioned by the lack of capacity of the Romani
language in general, creates a new imaginative
approach to the poetics of translating ideas.
Because of that, it feels like a double song, a
rewriting, like versions of your poetics in two
languages existing in parallel fashion.

Strategija pisanja poezije jeste ubedljiv The strategy of writing poetry is a convincing
monolog, iz kojeg se naslućuje reakcija i monologue, in which a reaction and also

182
emocija osobe sa kojom bi mogao svakog trena emotion can be deduced about a person
da nastane dijalog. Očekivanje tog (someone else) with whom a dialogue could
neostvarenog dijaloga, samo jača monolog, tj, begin at any moment. The expectation of that
strategiju oživljavanja ideje o konstruisanju unrealized dialogue just strengthens the
jedne poetske misli drži u sigurnosti. monologue, i.e. strengthens the strategy of
keeping the idea alive for constructing a poetic
thought, and for reining it in safely.

Stil kojim pišeš je klasični ako je u upotrebi The style of your writing is classical when you
rimovanje, i to je jedan od najtežih stilova use rhyme, and it's one of the hardest styles for
sricanja misaonosti kroz poetičko pjevanje. creating thought through poetic rewriting.
Sigurno da su u početku većina pisaca imali Certainly in the beginning most writers have
dodira sa rimom ili sa šablonskom diciplinom contact with rhyme or with models for
konstruisanja pesme. Medjutim, kod tebe se constructing poems. However, in your poems,
naslućuje rimovanje čak i u onim pesmama u one can anticipate the rhyme even when you
kojima ne koristiš taj stil što samo ukazuje na don’t use it. There is diligence and
veoma brižljivo pisanje, i veliki trud koji činiš, perseverance reflected in the writing. You give
dajući "sve od sebe" da ti pesma bude "u redu". all of yourself to get the poem right.

Tvoja poetika zapravo živi od kulturoloških Your poetics actually live from a cultural
primesa. Etno elementi su neraskidivi antipodi admixture. The ethnoelements [i.e. segments
tvog pisanja, bez obzira da li je to proza ili from Romani tradition] are inseparable antipodes
poezija. U tome tradiciju upotrebljavaš kao of your writing, regardless of whether it is prose or
dodatni element koji se skoro uvek menja, poetry. In this you use tradition as an extra element
zapravo ti si pisac koji želiš tradiciju da that is almost always changing. In fact you’re a
promeniš, čak i ako je spomeneš u svojim writer who likes to change tradition, even if
stihovima. you speak of it [tradition] in your verses.

183
Motivacija za pisanjem jednog poetsko The motivation for writing a poetics of a fortune-
gatarskog monologa je iskonska gatarka koja teller monologue is that the primordial fortune-
se u tebi opet probudila. I progovorila je, na teller has awoken in you. And she has begun to
način koji je tipičan lokalnoj komunikaciji speak, in a way that is typical for the local
jedne gatarke. Gatanje je fenomen koji je communication of a fortune-teller. Fortune-telling
mističan i kod samih Roma, i često se vezuje za is a phenomenon that is mystical for Roma
neka osećanja koja su nepoznanica themselves, and it is very often linked to some
konvencionalnom svatanju ljudske mašinerije i emotions which are unknown to the conventional
razuma, trajanja i opstanka. understanding of human thought, lasting and
surviving .

Ruždija Ruso Sejdović, who is at the same time a participant, a reader and a critic awoke
not just mine but also his consciousness about conection of the personal, cultural. He recognized
the use of the elements of tradition in my writing as my desire and intention to change. I see
different ways of reading, not with the intention to be received as knowledge and not in a way to
be received passively in myself as a possible autoethnographer who rather “want[s] readers to
feel, care and desire” (Bochner and Ellis 1996: 24). The change will be possible if our
autobiographies, biographies, poems, self-transaltions, analysis and self-analysis meet you
through their reflexivity.

184
CONCLUSION

As the previous analysis showed, Romani poets in this work write in different Romani
dialects: Gurbeti (Xoraxano) from Montenegro, Arli from Kosovo, combination of Arli (Kovački
- Bugurdjiski) and Gurbeti (Djambaski) from Macedonia, and Gurbeti from Bosnia and
Herzegovina. All poets use the Latin writing system and different orthography. Use of different
ortoghraphy is the product of the unfinished process of standardisation of the Romani language,
and also as a product of different feelings of the writers and poets about their identity, possible
readers, publishers etc. Also, I have to mention a possible influence on the poets of their
clustering around the linguists who promote Romani language and who might have influence on
publishing houses in order to manipulate their use of orthography.
It is not just the problem of the use of different writing systems and different orthography
but also the use of mixed dialects that influence the Romani poets and writers. Also, the use of
loanwords taken from majority languages is remarkable163. The examples of different writing
systems, different use of orthography, as well as the use of loanwords show the differences of the
writing level of the poets. This level is different and changable, or better to say they differ in
development, and it depends on cultural and educational development of the writer, development
and power of the linguistical movement and interference of politics in the Romani language in the
country/countries they live/lived. All of that is remerkable and visible in roaming of writer’s –
translator’s writing in their search for an appropriate standard. Their dilemma is linked not just to
linguists but also to the problem of readership and publishing.
As shown in chapter II, the use of loanwords and neologisms from majority languages in
Romani has made Romani communication and writing dependant on other langauges and this
dependence is more than obvious.164

163
In my analysis the case of Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrin and Croatian.
164
Once, I talked to Meli Depner, a translator from Germany, who translates Romani poets into German. While
contacting me and consulting about some words she needed to translate from Romani I was realized that the words
about whose meaning she asked me were loanwords from Serbian and found in Romani poems she translated. These
words are nowdays rearly used in Serbian but Roma still use them in Romani; like šifonjer which means chiffonier.
After many consultations she asked me how to study Romani which is spoken in former Yugoslavia, and my answer
was that she should first learn one of the majority languages Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian or Montenegrin.

185
 There are considerable differences in self-translation and translation strageties when self-
translating from an oficial majority language into Romani, and when self-translating from
Romani as a minority language into a majority language. Self-translation into Romani, in my
opinion, is easier because the majority language which is used as the source language, i.e.
original version is tought in schools and the poets are educated in it. The poet who is educated
well and who acquired a very good knowledge of the official majority langauge, i.e.
Serbocroatian, and who has a good knowledge of Romani, is able to self-translate into Romani
without big problems despite considerablly smaller number of words than in Serbocroatian has.
The self-translators’ problems are: the level of education, the use of the Romani dialect/s, and
the use of homonims. The use of homonims opens a question of the readership and reception.
Self-translation from Romani into Serbocroatian might cause problems becuse of a limited
knowledge of Serbocroatian, inadequate knowledge of the source culture and inadequate use of
equivalent meaninsg in both languages.
Because of the lack of education in Romani and also a lack of understanding of the
problems in standardisation of Romani, in many cases the complete meaning is reached just when
the Romani version is read simultaneously with the self-translation in manjority language/s.
My analysis shows that it is more than obvious that the writers i.e. self-translators used
translational tools while writing and self-translating. They used Romani and the contact
langauge/s dictionaries. Contact language/s vocabulary in writer’s use was rarely, but as I
explained in chapter I, dependance of languages is more then obvious and depends on readership
(Romani and non-Romani). In case of Romani readers, while reading one language version the
feeling of an incomplete poem occurs unless the other version is read, no matter whether it is the
case of source or target language. This incompleteness of the poem’s meaning while reading just
in Romani or just in Serbocroatian makes us read the poem in the second language i.e. the self-
translation in order to complete the meaning. This meaning in some cases is more complete just
while reading the second version in self-translation. To Romani poets it is almost impossible to
publish such a work just in one language version.
In case of non-Romani readers, each self-translation can be considered as an original
creative work. But, there is a problem of the perception of the meaning, of literary expression, of
understanding of Romani culture, which causes invisibility and absence of critiques in the
national literary canon. The question which comes to my mind is what would happen if the poem

186
is translated by another writer or translator i.e. if it was not a self-translation? Is it enough just to
be another Romani speaker? What interferences in the case of translation might occur? My
opinion is that it is not enough. To understand the exact meaning of the poem in translation it is
necessary to be someone who is of the same language/dialect and cultural background, and of the
same position in the society/ies.

Invisible writers and translators

Romani writers i.e. self-translators are constantly searching for their own identity and for their
own literary space, a place in the national canons of majority nations in whose countries they
live. They are just existing for themselves, but are invisible to others as stated by Toninato (2004,
161-62)

[t]he main reason why the written works by Romani authors have been generally
`invisible' and unknown to the Gage is simply that nobody expected them to be
there at all. The use of writing for literary purposes, in fact, is not in accordance
with the popular image of the `Gypsies' as wild, primitive and therefore
uneducated.

The relationship between nationalism and literature is another important dimension. It is

an issue that implicates anyone who is professionally engaged in the sociological problems of
culture, art, literature and who is living in the midst of the historical walls of the Balkans.
Nationalism and literature are connected. National consciousness and nationalist action in a
literary work are the presumed historical responsibility of the author. In the Balkans, cultural life
is permeated with politics in romantic, neo-romantic or pseudo-romantic fervor, with public
engagement synonymous with political nationalism. Romani literary image thus not only speaks
of culture and customs; it is also about the history and politics in which the works are created.
To bring Romani writers and self-translators into categories linked to any national canon
is impossible. Also to bring them into categorie such as bilingual is not even just enough: writing
in one Romani dialect but understanding one or more other dialects and writing for the readers of
all of these dialects, with a self-translation into a majority lanaguage which could be understood
in the region where readers speak more then four different national languages, again brings the
question of multilingualism. To categorize Romani writers as multilingual self-translators

187
according to the mentioned deffintions of multilingualism (see chapter I) is not enough. But what
about the fact that the self-translation is a habit of Romani poets?
In their written expression they use not just traditional Romani symbols, but they use in a
direct and an indirect way expressions which reflect and speak of an unequal treatment of the
Romani people in society i.e. their real place in society. Romani poets and translators cannot
really fulfil their cultural but also social responsibilities toward their own people.
The image of Romani culture, as depicted by non-Roma writers and authors, is too often
fixed, backward and romantic. Even while academic discussions assist in the deconstruction of
the national (or nationalistic) nature of the literary canon, the literary market in reality still tends
to mobilize around ‘old’ ways bound by stereotypes and prejudices, false romantism and kitsch.
Common to them all is the relationship between literature and the nation. Despite the fact that
world literature talks about a better understanding among nations and of unknown nations, and
examines the coherence of the nation as such, a writer, it seems, can only become interntionally
known through his or her national origin. This situation is problematic for Roma, and poses a real
dilemma. How can they become internationally known as authors through their national origin?
In what language of power can they be, if they could be, allowed to be published?
In my dissertation self-translation is a process that creates testimony on Romani čhib
differences and differences on the majority languages in the Western Balkans, which bring the
self between languages and creates their translingual experience. The fact that further language
acquisition occurs through translation and self-translation raises also the question of historical
relation between langauges and multicultural society.
As explained in chapter I - Translation studies and Romani writing- the categories of
Romani bilingual and/or multiligual self-translation overlap and again spill into the next category
of translingual. Also, power dynamics between languages with unequal cultural value brings a
translingual subject in the position to express its own difference and its own cultural othernesss.
There is no the concept in which I could really place the Romani literature.
The time and circumstances of the creation of Romani literary work on the one hand and
the structure of their writing and style on the other, create both a place and importance in the
history of the European literature or the history of the literature of European nations. Can Romani
literary work be considered a part of European literature? Do Roma belong to European nations?
Is the Romani identity a European identity? How much of European identity has influenced the

188
writing of Romani literature? How can the key concepts and frameworks of translation studies
enlighten us on the characteristics of Romani literature? All of these questions need to be
addressed, discussed and answered, and for this it is necessary to create an urgent dialogue
between Romani studies and Translation studies. I expect the readers to be other scholars of
Romani poetry and translation in general.
Romani literature is everywhere but not really placed where it should be and always
invisible, exactly like the Romani people are.

If we realize that universal humanity expresses itself in literature, we shall be able

to discern what is worth viewing in the latter. (Tagore 2001, 148)

Thinking about future of translation in the Romani context

Being aware of the advantages of the autobiographical method and reflexivity as
necessiary in this work, I decided to take this moment and space and place the problem of
translation and self-translation in the Romani context in a dialogue with Romani scholar Ronald
Lee, who is also an experienced translator. I also decided to take the responsibility to publish our
correspondence,165 for which I got Lee’s permition, to go a step forward and record it, wishing it
to be a part of the Romani history of translation. Using that possibility, my intention is, as
always, visibility and the use of Romani čhib in everyday communication todays.

Hedina Sijerčić - Romani Hedina Sijerčić – English

Ande mi disertacija mangav te pučav sar šaj te I would like to ask, for the purpose of my
traden thaj te čeren tradipe te si kate in Romani dissertation, how can we do translation if there
1400 svaturja thaj ande gadjikani buteder? Sar are 1400 Romani words and many more
te čeren ekvivalencija ande tradipe/tradimata? non-Romani? How can we reach equivalency
Džanav kaj kate naj ma atveto, odolese so in translation? I know there is no answer yet,
amen trubuj baro rodipe pala gova. because we need an extensive research about it.

Ronald Lee – Romani/English Ronald Lee – English

Si dui droma te puruvas/tolmachis Romanes There are two ways to translate Romani in
ande akanipeski gadjikani shib present non-Romani language

165
Email correspondence on 9.02.2016 between Hedina Sijerčić and Ronald Lee.

189
1) Shai uzis/xramos neologismurja, I need 1) You can write neologisms, I need
some new aps for my computer. Trobul ma some new aps for my computer. I need new
neve programurja vash muri komputeri and the programs for my computer and the
neologisms from the battery of common root neologisms from the battery of common root
words across the European-language words across the European-language
spectrum (which will include the Americas spectrum (which will include the Americas
because the languages came from Europe). because the languages came from Europe).
examples like sociologija, medesina, examples like sociology, medicine,
antropologija, kombinacija, heterogenitate, anthropology, combination, heterogeneity,
digitalno, etc. digital, etc.

2) through incoining of existing Romani 2) through incoining of the existing

words. Pediatrician - shavorengo doftoro, Romani words. Pediatrician - pediatrician,
intensive care - intensivno sama intensive care – intensive care

3) By reintroducing old core vocabulary 3) By reintroducing old core vocabulary

(thematic words) that exist in some dialects but (thematic words) that exist in some dialects but
not in others for for example. rukh, tree, len, not in others for example. tree, stream, , light,
stream, dud, light, sherutno with a slash as mainly with a slash as follows We sit under
follows Shindjas tele o baro kasht/rukh. the big tree.
4) By rephrasing the sentence that needs to be
translated to fit Romanes. For example. We
4) By rephrasing the sentence that needs to
have insufficient funds to cover the cost of the
be translated to fit Romanes. For example. We
new equipment needed for the auditorium - Nai
have insufficient funds to cover the cost of the
amen dosta love te pochinel vash le neve
new equipment needed for the auditorium –
aparati kaj trobul i auditorija
We don’t have enough money to buy a new
appliances which we need for auditorium

It could be seen that neologisms and loanwords play an important role in Romani people’s
bilingualism/multilingualism when considering both translation and self-translation.
Correspondence started in my Gurbeti, including three Kalderash words (atweto, svaturja,
tradimata). Even though I am aware of Lee’s knowledge of these words in Gurbeti (as irisaripe,
alavurja, tradipe), I used the Kalderash words for our better understanding, and because I liked to
get his sympathy letting him know about my knowledge of Kalderash. Also, his point about
reintroducing the old core vocabulary was applied in this question.
The reason for publishing this correspondence was to confirm my assertion that Roma
mostly write prose in non-Romani languages. Everyday communication vocabulary as well as
spoken and written correspondence do not allow professional communication and translation

190
because of the missing terminology. Lee’s proposal could be taken into consideration for the
future investigation in the field of translation in the Romani context, which would encourage
development and creation of the new translational tools.

The future of Romani čhib

More and more educated and literate Roma are connected and use computers, the Internet,
mobile devices and various types of social media. Globalization and the interconnectivity through
computers and social networks that results underscore the unique condition of the Romani
languge use. Speakers of different dialects attempt to communicate across national and dialectal
boundearies using the writng scripts they were educated in. Adaption of concepts and vocabulary
may be planned or spontaneous, and specific problems due to Romani bilingualism and
multilingualism arise. If localization of a user interface or website is panned, according to the
conventional definiton, it involves “taking a product and making it linguistically and culturally
appropriate to the target locale (country/region and langauge) where it will be used and sold”
(Munday 2008, 191). In this regard, clearly established dialects with standardized scripts would
need to be used to plan for localization. Since this is not the case for Romani, a more spontaneous
localization often arises wherby adaptions are proposed or used in order to carry out
communication.
In some cases, the global lingua franca English is used, acting as a kind of interlingual
support bridge. In these cases, the purpose is clearly a functional one. To illustrate, one example
is found in the use of the word narodo (‘folk’). It is Slavic rather then international but it is used
instead of the original them by 80% or more Roma in migration (around the world). The word has
been socially preferred rather than academically prescribed, and hence merits descripton. It is
also an example of how a Romani neologism emerged under the influence of a local/regional
territory where Slavic languages are used. As noted by Munday (2008, 191-92) and Pym (2004a,
65) in the context of internatinalization in relation to the concept of equivalence:

Transnational equivalence [...] is traditionally concerned with large-scale

complex social entities (and) cannot help but engage in the complexity and
overlaps of culture.

In other words, whether localization or digital translation is planned for or spontaneously

arises in the Romani digital context, it consistently reflects the dynamics of adaption needed and
191
used for communication among diverse dialect groups who are fluent in other national langauges
as well. The equivalence is a funcional one and is also under attack for involving a “subjective
judgement from the translator or analyst” (Munday 2012, 68). The loan words, loan translations,
and neologisms all tie in with questions of identity, related to migration, culture, language, and
loss of one’s ethnic language, but “where there is deficiency” such as is in Romani, “terminology
may be qualified and amplified” (Jakobson 2004, 115)
In that way invention and creation of a new terminology and new meanings in language
lead to the phenomena of translangualism and translanguaging. Adapting different names or
meanings, Romani čhib users signify a new identity of language between languages. Their new
meanings, subjectivities and new translingual self creations are developed (Garcia and Wei 2014)
and an adequate way to transfer it through translation is, in my opinion, ‘just’ in self-translation.

192
REFERENCES

Acković, Dragoljub (1996). Ašunen Romalen/Listen people. Beograd: Rromniterpress & Radio
B92.
Acković, Dragoljub (2001). Nacija smo a ne Cigani. Beograd: Rromniterpress.
Acković, Dragoljub (2003). Bi kheresko bi limoresko - Bez doma baz groba. [Without home
without grave]. Smederevo: Arka.
Acković, Dragoljub (2012). “Ogled o proučavanju romskog jezika” in Standardizacija romskog
jezika, Djurić, Rajko. Sarajevo: Romski informativni centar “Kali Sara”.
Acković, Dragoljub (2012b). Tradicionalna nematerijalna kulturna baština Roma. [Traditional
intangible cultural heritage of Roma]. Beograd: Rominterpres.
Acković, Dragoljub, ed. (2012a). “Antologija romske poezije” [Anthology of Romani poetry] in
Sarajevske sveske [Sarajevo notebooks]. Sarajevo: Sarajevske sveske, pp. 39-40.
Acton, Thomas (2008). “History and Background:The Gajo problem: By way of background” in
Roma New Migrants: Local Research in the U.K and European Context. Marion Horton
and John Grayson, eds., AdEd Knowledge Company LLP and BBEMI, pp. 5-7.
Retrieved from
http://www.redtoothcreativesolutions.com/aded/docs/Roma_Conference_Report.pdf
Acton, Thomas and Morgan Dalphinis, eds. (2000). Language, Blacks and Gypsies: Languages
Without a Written Tradition and Their Role in Education. London: Whiting and Birch.
Acton, Thomas, ed. (1988). Scholarship and the Gypsy Struggle, Commitment in Romani studies.
Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press.
Aleksandrović, Marija (2012). Bacila sam jabuku u peć. [I threw an apple in the oven]. Novi Sad:
Zavod za kulturu Vojvodine.
Alexander, B. K. (2005). “Performance ethnography: The reenacting and inciting of Culture.” In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, 411-42
Alexander, B. K. (2006). Performing black masculinity : Race, culture, and queer identity.
Lanham, MD: Rowman Altamira.
Alexander, Ronelle (2006). Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Grammar With Sociolinguistic
Commentary, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Alsop, Christiane K. (2001). Power, anxiety and the research process. Reflections on my research
experiences in midstream and where to go from here. In Christiane K. Alsop (Ed.),
Grenzgängerin. Bridges between disciplines. Festschrift fuer Irmingard Staeuble
Kröningen: Asanger, 173-192.
Alsop, Christiane K. (2002, September). „Home and Away: Self-Reflexive Auto-
/Ethnography“ [55 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative

193
 Social Research [On-line Journal], 3(3). Available at: http://www.qualitative-
research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm [2016-02-05].

Anderson, L. (2006). ‘Analytic autoethnography’ Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35: 4,

373-95

Angelelli, Claudia V. and Brian James Baer, eds. (2016). Researching translation and
interpreting. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. (pdf-book)

Anon. (2011). “Roma: binding EU standards to integrate Europe's largest minority” on the
European Parlement News Website Retrieved 10.2017.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-
room/content/20110309IPR15166/html/Roma-binding-EU-standards-to-integrate-
Europe%27s-largest-minority. Press Release Ref. 20110309IPR15166
Anon. “Nedjo Osman” on the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) website. Retrieved on 07.2014
from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0652063/
Anon. “Papusza” in The Orlando Sentinel website. Retrieved 12.2011 from
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1987-02-19/news/0110120280_1_gypsy-polish-
translation-papusza
Anon. “Rezultati pretraživanja – ‘Saćip, Mehmed’” in Katalog Knjižnica grada Zagreba website.
Retrieved 07.2014 from
http://www.katalog.kgz.hr/pagesResults/rezultati.aspx?&searchById=40&spid0=10&sp
v0=Sa%C4%87ip%2c+Mehmed&xm0=1
Anon. Council of Europe Plurilingual and Pluricultural Competence Report 2009. Retreived 11.
2013 from
https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/SourcePublications/CompetencePlurilingue0
9web_en.pdf
Anon. “Romani Dialects” on the ROMLEX website. Retrieved 06.2014 from http://romani.uni-
graz.at/romlex/dialects.xml
Anon. “Sejdović, Ruždija-Ruso” in zapisi 133 website. Retrieved on 07.2014 from
http://www.nbcg-
digitalnabibliografija.me/bibliografija_tekuca/clanci_2012/zapisi133.html#3960;
Retreived on 11.2016 from https://www.avlija.me/poezija/ruzdija-ruso-sejdovic-svedok-
druga-nagrada-casopisa-avlija-za-najbolju-pjesmu-regionu-za-2014-godinu ; Retreived on
10. 2017 from https://www.cdm.me/kultura/casopis-avlija-nagradio-najbolje-pjesme-i-
price/?page=0%2C2

Anon. The copy of text in Museum of Romani culture in Belgrade, online sources websites.
Retrieved on 02.2017 from https://archive.org/details/fyrstbokeintrod01boorgoog and
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k930027/f118.image.r=.langEN

194
Appadurai, Arjun (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Public
Worlds, Volume 1. Series Editors Dilip Gaonkar and Benjamin Lee. Minneapolis,
London: University of Minnesota Press.
Appel, René and Pieter Muysken (2005). Language Contact and Bilingualism. Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam Academic Archive.
Aronin, Larissa and Britta Hufeisen, eds. (2006) Volume 6. The Exploration of Multilingualism.
Development of research on L3, multingualism and multiple language acquisition.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Asad, Talal. (1986) “The Concept of Cultural Translation in British Social Anthropology”. In
James Clifford and George E. Marcus (eds) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of
Ethnography. University of California Press, 141-64.
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin (1998). Key Concept in Post-Colonial Studies.
London and New York: Routledge.
Attar, Samar (2005). “Translating the Exiled Self: Reflection on Translation and Censorship.” In
Intercultural Communication Studies XIV: 4 2005, 139-148. Retrieved November 2015
http://web.uri.edu/iaics/files/10-Samar-Attar.pdf

Backus, Ad. (2013). “Turkish as an Immigrant Language in Europe” in The Handbook of

Bilingualism and Multilingualism. 2nd Edition. Bhatia K. Tej and William C. Ritchie,
eds. “Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics” Series. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, pp. 770-790.
Baer, Brian James and Geoffrey S. Koby, eds. (2003). Beyond the Ivory Tower: Rethinking
translation pedagogy. American Translators Association, Scholarly Monograph Series,
Volume XII. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Baer, Brian James, ed. (2011) Contexts, Subtexts and Pretexts. Literary Translation in Eastern
Europe and Russia. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Baker, Mona (1995). “Corpora in Translation Studies. An Overview and Suggestions for Future
Research”. Target, 7(2), 223-243.

Baker, Mona (1993). “Corpus linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and applications.”
In Text and Technology: In Honor of John Sinclair, Mona Baker, Gill Francis &
Elena Tognini- Bonelli (eds), 233–250. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Baker, Mona and Gabriela Saldanha eds. (1998/2009/2011). Routledge Encyclopedia of

Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin.
Holquist Michael, eds. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.
Bakker, Peter and Khristo Kiuchukov, eds. (2000 ). What is the Romani language? Hartfield:
Centre de rechershes tsiganes. University of Hertfordshire Press.

195
Bakker, Peter (1999). The Northern branch of Romani: mixed and non-mixed varieties. In: Die
Sprache der Roma. Perspectiven der Romani-Forschung in Österreich im
interdisziplinären und inernazionalen Kontext ed. By Dieter Halwachs and Florian
Menz. Klagenfurt: Drava 172-209.
Balić, Sait [redakcioni odbor et al.] (1984). Jaga/Vatre [Fire]. Bujanovac: XI Smotra kulturnih
dostignuća Roma SR Srbije.
Bassetti, Benedetta (2013). “Bilingualism and Writing Systems” in The Handbook of
Bilingualism and Multilingualism. 2nd Edition. “Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics”
Series. Bhatia K. Tej and William C. Ritchie, eds. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
in the series, pp. 649-670.
Bassnet, Susan (1998). “When is a Translation Not a Translation?” in Bassnet, Susan and
Lefevere, André. Constructiong Cultures. Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters, pp. 25-40.
Bassnet, Susan (2002/2005). Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and
Francis Group.
Bassnet, Susan and André Lefevere (1998). Constructiong Cultures. Essays on Literary
Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bassnet, Susan and Harish Trivedi, eds. (1999/2002). Postcolonial Translation. Theory and
Practice. London and New York: Routledge.
Bassnett, Susan and André Lefevere, eds. (1990) Translation, History and Culture. London and
New York: Pinter.
Bauman, Richard and Charls L. Briggs (1990). Poetic and Performance as Critical Perspective on
Language. Anual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 19, 59-88. Retrieved on 19.01.2016
from http://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/media/Course_files/anth-490-edward-h-
hagen/bauman-and-briggs-1990-poetics-and-performance-as-critical-perspectives-on-
language-and-social-life.pdf
Benjamin, Walter (2000) [1968, 1923] “The Task of the Translator.” Transl. Harry Zohn. in
Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York:
Routledge, pp. 15–25. Retrieved in 2004, in Taylor and Francis e-Library.
Bermann, Sandra and Michael Wood, eds. (2005). Nation, Langauge, and the Ethics of
Translation. Translation, Transnation. Series Editor: Apter, Emily. Princeton and
Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Besemeres, Mary (2002). Translating One's Self: Language and Selfhood in Cross-Cultural
Autobiography. European Connections Series. P. Collier ed. Vol. 3. Oxford, Bern,
Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Wien: Petar Lang.
Beylard-Ozeroff, Ann, Jana Králová and Barbara Moser-Mercer (1998). Translators' strategies
and creativity. Selected Papers from the 9th International Conference on Translation
and Interpreting, Prague, September 1995. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.

196
Bhabha, Homi (1994). The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge.
Bhatia, K. Tej and William C. Ritchie, eds. (2013). The Handbook of Bilingualism and
Multilingualism. 2nd Edition. “Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics” Series.
Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Bhatia, K. Tej and William C. Ritchie eds. (2004/2006). The Handbook of Bilingualism.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Bialystok, Ellen (2013). “The Impact of Bilingualism on Language and Literacy Development”
in The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. 2nd Edition. “Blackwell
Handbooks in Linguistics” Series. Bhatia K. Tej and William C. Ritchie, eds.
Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing in the series, 624-648.
Blackledge, Adrian (2005). Discourse and Power in a Multilingual World. Amsterdam
/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bogue, Ronald (1989). Deleuze and Guattari. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and
Francis Group.
Boretzky, Norbert (1999). “Grammatical interference in Romani: Loan formations for foreign
categories”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46:3-4. 169-200.
Borrow, George (1841). The Zincali, or an account of the Gypsies of Spain. Republished in
London in 1924.
Borrow, George (1851). Lavengro: scholar, Gipsy, priest. Republished in London in 1910.
Borrow, George (1874). Romano Lavo-Lil [Word book of the Romany or English Gypsy
language]. Republished in London in 1910.
Bourdieu Pierre, J. Richardson, eds. (1986) “The forms of capital” in Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education .Westport CT: Greenwood, 241–258.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Tr. Richard Nice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2008). Key Concepts. Edited by Michael Grenfell. Durham: Acumen
Publishing Limited. Reprinted 2009/2010.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc J.D. Wacquant (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology.
Cambridge: The University of Chicago, Polity Press.

Brems, Elke and Sara Ramos Pinto (2013). “Reception and translation.” U Handbook of
Translation Studies. Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer eds. John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 142-147.
Bugarski, Ranko (2010). Jezik i identitet. [Language and identity]. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek.

197
Bugarski, Ranko (2012). “Language, identity and borders in the former Serbocroatian area” in
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 33:3, pp. 219-235. Also
retrieved 07.2014 from http://dx.doi.org./10.1080/01434632.2012.663376
Bussmann, Hadumod (1996). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Translated and
edited by Gregory P. Trauth and Kerstin Kazzazi. London and New York: Routledge.
Butler, Yuko Goto (2013). “Bilingualism/Multilingualism and Second-Language Acquisition” in
The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Second Edition. Bhatia K. Tej and
William C. Ritchie, eds. “Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics” Series. Malden/Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, pp. 109-136.
Cabré, M. Teresa (1999). Termonology: Theory, methods and applications.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh (2011). “Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research
and pedagogy” in Applied Linguistics Review. vol. 2, pp. 1-28.Cordingley, Antony, eds.
(2013) Self-translation: Brokering Originality in Hybrid Culture. London, New Delhi,
New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury IATIS.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan
Relations. New York: Routledge.
Candel-Mora, Miguel A. and Chelo Vargas-Sierra (2013). „An Analysis of Research Production
in Corpus Linguistics Applied to Translation.“ Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 95, 317-324. 5th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics (CILC2013).
Elsevier Ltd. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.653 Retrieved 8.03.2016
www.sciencedirect.com

Cenoz, Jasone and Gorter, Durk (2011). “Multilingualism” in The Routledge Handbook of
Applied Linguistics, James Simpson, eds. London and New York: Routledge Taylor and
Francis Group, pp. 401-412.
Chan, Tak-hung Leo (2016). Reader response and reception theory. In Angelelli, Claudia V. and
Brian James Baer, eds. Researching translation and interpreting. London and New
York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Chesterman, Andrew (2000). “Shared Ground in Translation Studies: Coda by AC” in Target
12:1, 156-157
Chesterman, Andrew (2013). Personal notes taken during Lecture at the CETRA Research
Summer School.
Chimbutane, Feliciano (2012). “The Advantages of Research in Familiar Locales, Viewed from
the Perspectives of Researcher and Researched. Reflections on Ethnographic Fieldwork
in Mozambique” in Multilingualism, Discourse and Ethnography, Gardner, Sheena and
Marilyn Martin-Jones, eds. New York/London: Routledge, 288-304.
Cintas, Diaz Jorge and Gunilla Anderman, eds. (2009). Audiovisual Translation: Language
Transfer on Screen. Hampshire: Palgrave macmillan.

198
Clébert, Jean-Paul (1967). Cigani. [Gypsies]. Zagreb: Stvarnost.
Constantin, Cosmin (2014). “The Autoethnographic method – an alternative in communication”.
Professional Communication and Translation Studies, 7 (1-2)/ 2014. Feb. 2016
http://cls.upt.ro/files/cls/Publicatii/Proceedings/7-2014/04_PCTS_7_2014_Baias.pdf
Conway, Kyle (2012). “Cultural translation” in Handbook of Translation Studies Volume 3. Yves
Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer, eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21-25. Retrieved
09.2013. http://www.academia.edu/2379950/Cultural_Translation.
Cook, Guy (2011). “Discourse analysis” in The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics.
Simpson James, eds. New York: Routledge, 431-444.
Cordingley, Antony, ed. (2013) Self-translation: Brokering Originality in Hybrid Culture.
London, New Delhi, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury IATIS.
Council of Europe (CE) (1998). The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
Retrieved on 02.2014 from
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/textcharter/default_en.asp
Council of Europe (CE) (2015). The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) on
5 November 2015 on the occasion of the International Romani Laguage Day, http://www.roma-
alliance.org/en/page/182-5th-november--international-day-of-romani-language.html, Retrieved
11. 2015.

Council of Europe (CE) (2008). “Education of Roma children in Europe” factsheet available on
Council of Europe website. Retrieved www.coe.int/education/roma
Council of Europe (CE) (2008a). “Arrival in Europe” brochure in Roma Factsheets, part of the
Education of Roma children in Europe project. Retrieved 02.2014 from
http://romafacts.uni-graz.at/index.php/history/early-european-history-first-
discrimination/arrival-in-europe
Council of Europe (CE) (2014). “Education and Languages, Language Policy” on Council of
Europe website, under the Democracy section. Retrieved 03.2015 from
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Division_en.asp
Courthiade, Marcel (1991). “Les dialects Posa et Mitrip”. ET (3):54.
Courthiade, Marcel (1998). “The dialects structure of the Romani language”. Interface 31: 9-14.
Courthiade, Marcel and Alain Reyniers, eds. (2005). “Langue et culture : approche linguistique”
in Études tsiganes. vol. 2, no. 22. Paris: Études tsiganes.
Courthiade, Marcel, Melinda Rezmuves, Lucia Presber and Geoff Husic, eds. (2009) Morri
angluni rromane chibaqi evroputni lavustik. Budapest: Favorosi Onkormanyzat Cigany
Haz -Romano kher, 496-497.
Cousin, W. John. Dictionary of Englsih Literature. The University of Adelaide, last updated in
December 2014, e-book. Retrieved April 2015.
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/cousin/john/biog/b.html
199
Cressey, Gill (2012). “Diaspora Youth, Ancestral Languages and English as ‘translation’ in
Multilingual Space” in Multilingualism, Discourse and Ethnography. Gardner, Sheena
and Marilyn Martin-Jones, eds. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 131-141.
Cronin, Michael (2003). Translation and Globalization. New York: Routledge, Taylor and
Francis Group.
Cronin, Michael (2006). Translation and Identity. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and
Francis Group.
Crystal, David (2010). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Third edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge U. Press.
Cynthia Levine-Rasky and Hedina Tahirović-Sijerčić (2017). “Introduction”, in A Romani
Women’s Anthology: Spectrum of the Blue Water, Inanna Publications and Education
Inc.: Toronto, Canada, pp.1-11.
D’haen, Theo (2012). The Routledge Concise History of World Literature. New York: Routledge,
Taylor and Francis Group.
Darquennes, Jeroen (2011). “Minorities, language politics and language planning in Europe” in
The Languages, and Linguistics of Europe. A Comprehensive Guide. Bernd Kortman
and Johan van der Auwera, eds. Göttingen: Walter de Gruyter GmbH &
Davies, Maria González (2004). Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom: Activities, tasks
and projects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari (1987). A thousand plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia.
Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.
Demir, Ljatif (2013). Narodna književnost Roma [Traditional literature of Roma]. Lecture at the
Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb.
Demir, Ljatif and Demir, Fatime (2010). Lavustik: Romani-makedonikani/Makedonikani-
Romani./ Rečnik:Romsko-makedonski. Makedonsko-romski. Skopje: Romski kulturni i
edukativni centar “Darhija”.
Demir, Ljatif and Durmiš, Nevsija (2012). Gramatika romskoga jezika/Gramatika e romane
čhibaki [Grammar of the Romani language]. Zagreb: Udruga za promicanje obrazovanja
Roma u RH “Kali Sara”.
Denzin N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln, eds. (2000). The handbook of qualitative research 2nd ed.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 733-768.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive Biography. London: SAGE Publications.

Denzin, N.K. (2003). Performance ethnography: Critical Pedagogy and the politics of culture.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

200
Denzin, N. K. (2005). Emancipatory discourses and the ethics and politics of interpretation. In
The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed., N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, eds.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, 933-958.

Denzin, Norman K., Yvonna S. Lincoln and Linda Tuhiwai Smith, eds. (2008). Critical-
Indigenous Methodologies. Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore: SAGE.

Dinasi, e Adaleta, eds. (2012). Antologija e Rromane poezijaći/Antologija romske poezije

[Anthology of Romani poetry]. Zagreb:Romska udruga romski putevi.
Dizdar, Delek (2012). “General translation theory.” In Handbook of Translation Studies, Volume
3, DOI: 10.1075/hts.3.gen2. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 52-58. Retreived
25.01.2014 from
http://www.benjamins.com.mercury.concordia.ca/cgibin/bbr_hts.cgi?cmd=show_article
&file=/articles/gen2.html&printview=1
Djurić, Rajko (1987). Seobe Roma – Krugovi pakla i venac sreće. [Migration of Roma-circles of
hell and wreath of happiness]. Beograd: Beogradski izdavačko-grafički zavod.
Djurić, Rajko (2005). Gramatika e rromane čhibaki / Gramatika romskog jezika [Grammar of the
Romani language]. Beograd: Otkrovenje.
Djurić, Rajko (2005a). “Predgovor” [“Foreword”] in Rromanipe(n): O Ku lturnom Identitetu
Roma: Promovisanje i Zaštita Kulturnih Prava u Programu Javnog Zastupništva, 2003-
2005 [Rromanipe(n): About Cultural Identity of Roma:Promotion and Protection of
Cultural Rights in the Programm of Public Representatives, 2003-2005]. Devis,
Barbara/Đurić, Rajko/B. Đorđević, Dragoljub, eds. Beograd : Care International u Srbiji
i CrnojGori. pp. 11-12.
Djurić, Rajko (2010). Istorija romske književnosti. [History of the Romani literature.] Vršac:
Biblioteka Vetrokaz.
Djurić, Rajko (2011). Pravopis romskoga jezika/ O čačolekhavno e rromane čhibako [Spelling of
the Romani language]. Vršac: Visoka škola strukovnih studija za obrazovanje vaspitača
“Mihailo Palov”.
Djurić, Rajko (2012). Standardizacija romskog jezika. [Standardization of the Romani language].
Sarajevo: Romski informativni centar “Kali Sara”.
Djurić, Rajko and Antun Miletić (2008). Istorija holocausta Roma. [History of the Holocaust of
Roma]. Beograd: Politika.
Djurić, Rajko and Veljko Kajtazi (2011). Povijest romske književnosti. Zagreb: Kali Sara.
Eagleton, Terry (1983/1996/2008). Literary Theory: An Introduction. Great Britain: Blackwell
Publishers Ltd. USA: University of Minnesota Press.
Edwards, John (1994). Multilingualism. London and New York: Routledge.
Edwards, John (2009). Language and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

201
Edwards, John (2013). “Bilingualism and Multilingualism: Some Central Concepts” in The
Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Second edition. Bhatia K. Tej and
William C. Ritchie, eds. “Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics” Series. Malden/Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, pp. 5-25.
Edwards, Viv. Inclusive education for second langauge learners: the case of Roma children in
Croatia. Paper prepared for the Open Society Foundation. Retrieved 01.2014 from
https://www.academia.edu/183803/Inclusive_education_for_second_language_learners_
the_case_of_Roma_children_in_Croatia
Ellingson, Laura. L., & Ellis, Carolyn (2008). “Autoethnography as constructionist project”. In J.
A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 445-466).
New York: Guilford Press.
Ellis, Carolyn (2004) . The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Ellis, Carolyn and Arthur P. Bochner (2000). “Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity”
in Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed. Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln,
eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 733-768.
Ellis, Carolyn and Arthur P. Bochner, eds. (1996). Composing Ethnography: Alternative Forms
of Qualitative Writing. AltaMira Press.
Ellis, Carolyn and Arthur P. Bochner ( 2006). “Analyzing analytic autoethnography: An
autopsy.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35: 4, 429-49.
Ellis, Carolyn, Tony E. Adams and Arthur P. Bochner (2011). “Autoethnography: An Overview”
in Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 12:1, Art.
10. Retrieved 01.2015 from
http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/%0Bview/1589/3095
Elšik,Viktor (1997). “Towards a morphology-based typology of Romani”, In The Typology and
Dialectology of Romani Yaron Matras, Peter Bakker, Hristo Kyuchukov, eds.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Even-Zohar, Itamar (1978). Papers in Historical Poetics. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics
and Semiotics.
Even-Zohar, Itamar (1990). “Poetics Today” in International Journal for Theory and Analysis of
Literature and Communication. 11:1. Retrieved 10.08.2014.
http://www.tau.ac.il/~itamarez/works/books/ez-pss1990.pdf
Even-Zohar, Itamar (2000). “The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem”
(revised version of 1978 article) in The Translation Studies Reader, Lawrence Venuti,
ed. London: Routledge, pp. 192-197.
Federman, R. (1987). The Writer as Self-Translator. In Beckett Translating/Translating Beckett,
A.W. Friedman, et all, eds. 7-16, London: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 14-
15 quoted in Attar (2005) Translating the Exiled Self: Reflections on Translation and
Censorship.

202
Ferguson, C.A. (1959). „Diglossia.“ Word, vol.15, 325-340. Retrieved on 20.01.2016 from
http://mapage.noos.fr/masdar/Ferguson-Diglossia.pdf

Fernandes, Lincoln (2006). „Corpora in Translation Studies: revisiting Baker's typology“.

Fragmentos, número 30, p. 087/095 Florianópolis/ jan - jun/ 2006. Retreived 9.02.2016
from https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/fragmentos/article/viewFile/8217/7690

Fish, Stanley (1980). Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretative
Communities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University
Press.
Fishman, A. Joshua (2013). “Language Maintenance, Language Shift, and Reversing Language
Shift” in The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. 2 nd Edition. “Blackwell
Handbooks in Linguistics” Series. Bhatia K. Tej and William C. Ritchie, eds.
Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 466-494.
Fitch, B.T. (1988). Beckett and Babel. An investigation into the status of the bilingual work.
Toronto, Buffalo & London: University of Toronto Press.

Flynn, Peter (2005). A Linguistic Ethnography of Literary Translation: Irish Poems and Dutch-
Speaking Translators. Ghent University.

Flynn, Peter (2010). “Ethnographic Approaches” in Handbook of Transltion Studies. Volume 1.

Gambier, Yves and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 116-119.
Folaron, Deborah (2011). “Is Romani Officially Recognized?” In Translation Romani. Retrieved
11.2014 http://www.translationromani.net/en/romani/language/is-romani-officially-
recognized
Folaron, Deborah (2011b). Translation Romani website. Retrieved 11.2017.
http://www.translationromani.net/en.
Friedman, Victor A. (2003). Romani as a minority language, as a standard language, and as a
contact language: Comparative legal, sociolinguistic, and structural approaches. In
Fraurud, Kari/Hyltenstam, Kenneth.eds. Multilingualism in Global and Local
Perspectives. Selected papers from the 8th Nordic Conference on Bilingualism,
November 1-3, 2001, Stockholm-Rinkeby. Stockholm: Elanders Gotab, 103-134.
Gambier, Yves and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. (2010). Handbook of Translation Studies. Volume 1.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gambier, Yves and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. (2011) Handbook of Translation Studies. Volume 2.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
García, Ofelia and Colin Baker, eds. (2007). Bilingual Education: An Introductory Reader.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
García, Ofelia and Li Wei (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

203
Gardner, Sheena and Marilyn Martin-Jones, eds. (2012) Multilingualism, Discourse and
Ethnography. New York/London: Routledge.
Gentzler, Edwin (1993/2001). Contemporary Translation Theories . New York: Routledge.
Giampapa, Frances (2012). “Authenticity, Legitimacy and Power. Critical Ethnography and
Identity Politics” in Multilingualism, Discourse and Ethnography, Gardner, Sheena and
Marilyn Martin-Jones, eds. New York/London: Routledge, 95-107.
Grosman, Meta, Mira Kadrić, Irena Kovačič, Mary Snell-Hornby, eds. (2000/2009). Translation
into Non-Mother Tongues. In Professional Practice and Training. Studien zur
Translation. Volume 8. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
Grutman, Rainer (2000). “The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem”
(revised version of 1978 article) in The Translation Studies Reader. Venuti, Lawrence,
ed. London: Routledge, pp. 192-197.
Grutman, Rainer (1997). Des langues qui résonnent.
L’hétérolinguisme au XIXe siècle québécois. Montréal : Fides.
Grutman, Rainer (2009). “Multilingualism” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.
Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, eds. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 182-
186.
Grutman, Rainer (2013). “A sociological glance at self-translation and self-translators” in Self-
translation: Brokering Originality in Hybrid Culture. Antony Cordingley, ed. London,
New Delhi, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury IATIS, pp. 63-80.
Grutman, Rainer and Trish Van Bolderen (2014). „Self-Translation.“ In A Companion to
Translation Studies. Eds. Sandra Bermann and Catherine Porter. West Sussex: Wiley-
Blackwell, 323-332.

Grutman, Rainier (2009a). “Self-translation” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.

Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, eds. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and
Francis Group, pp. 257-260.
Haliti, Bajram (2011). Srpsko-romski rečnik (sa gramatikom i pravopisnim
savetnikom)./Serbikano-Rromano alavari (e gramatikaca thaj e vorgtaxramosaripnasqe
sikavipnaca. Novi Sad: Prometej.
Halwachs, W. Dieter (2011). “Romani, Language Planning and the Media” in The RomIdent
Working Papers. No. 2. University of Manchester: [Romani] project. Retrieved 09.2014
from
http://romani.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/virtuallibrary/librarydb//web/files/pdfs/293/P
aper2.pdf
Halwachs, W. Dieter, Klinge, Simone and Schrammel, Barbara eds. (2013). Romani, Education,
Segregation and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Graz:
Grazer Romani Publikationen/GRP 01/GLM. Also retrieved on 01.2014
http://a.cs.coe.int/team20/cahrom/6th%20CAHROM%20plenary%20meeting/Item%200
7%20-%20ECRML%20Study%20on%20Romani_education_segregation.pdf

204
Hancock, Ian (1995). A Handbook of Vlax Romani. Columbus: Slavica Publishers, Inc.
Hancock, Ian (1997). “The roots of antigypsyism: to the Holocaust and after” in Confronting the
Holocaust: A Mandate for the 21st Century. G.J. Colijn & Marcia Sachs Littell, eds.
Lanham: University Press of America, 19-49. Retrieved 01.2014 from
http://www.radoc.net/radoc.php?doc=art_b_history_rootsofprejudice&lang=en&articles
=true
Hancock, Ian (1998). “The struggle for the control of identity” in Transitions. 4:4. Retrieved
08.2012 from http://www.oocities.org/~patrin/identity.htm
Hancock, Ian (2002/2005/2007). We are the Romani people/Ames am e Rromane džene.
Hertfordshire: Centre de Recherches Tsiganes, University of Hertfordshire Press.
Hancock, Ian (2003). “Language Corpus and Language Politics: The Case of the Standardization
of Romani” in Nation-Building, Ethnicity and Language Politics in Transition
Countries. Farimah Daftary and François Grin, eds. Budapest: Open Society Institute.
Hancock, Ian (2006). “On Romani Origins and Identity: questions for discussion” in Gypsies and
the problem of identity: contextual, constructed and contested. A. Marsh and E. Strand,
eds. Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute.
Hancock, Ian (2007). “Our need for internal diplomatic skills” in Roma Diplomacy. Nicolae
Valery and Hanna Slavik, eds. Brussels: European Roma Information Office.
Hancock, Ian (2007-2008 a). “Language Corpus and Language Politics: The Case of the
Standardization of Romani” on the RADOC website. Retrieved 09.04.2011 at
http://www.radoc.net/radoc.php?doc=art_c_language_standardization&lang=en&articles
=true
Hancock, Ian (2007-2008). “Issues in the Standardization of the Romani Language: An overview
and some recommendations” on the RADOC website. Retrieved 09.04.2011.
http://www.radoc.net/radoc.php?doc=art_c_language_recommendations&lang=en&artic
les=true
Hancock, Ian (2010). Danger! Educated Gypsy. Selected Essays. Hertfordshire: University of
Hertfordshire Press.
Hancock, Ian (2010a).“Mind the Doors! The contribution of linguistics” in All Change! Romani
Studies through Romani eyes. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press.
Hassan, Bahad-eddin Abdulhassan (2011). Literary Translation: Aspects of Pragmatic Meaning.
Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
Havlásková, Zuzana (2010). Interference in Students’ Translations, Master’s Diploma Thesis,
Supervisor: Mgr. Renata Kamenická, Ph. D. Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts:
Department of English and American Studies, English-language Translation.
Hermans, Theo (1991). “Translational Norms and Correct Translations” in Translation Studies.
The State of the Art. Kitty van Leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens, eds. Amsterdam &
Atlanta: Rodopi, pp. 155-170.
205
Hermans, Theo (1991a). “Translating ‘Rhetorijckelijck’ or ‘Ghetrouwelijck’: Dutch Renaissance
Approaches to Translation” in Standing Clear. A Festschrift for Reinder P. Meijer. Jane
Fenoulhet and Theo Hermans, eds. London: Centre for Low Countries Studies, 151-172.
Retrieved 12.2014 from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/957/1/91_FestschriftRPM.pdf
Hermans, Theo (1999). Translation in Systems. Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Explained.
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Hermans, Theo ed. (2006). Translating others. Volume 1. London and New York: Routledge,
Taylor and Fracis Group. Retrieved on 19.01.2016
(http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781317640455_sample_573079.pdf)

Hermans, Theo, ed. (1985) The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation.
Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Hermans, Theo (2009). “Translation, ethics, politics.” In The Routledge companion to
Translation Studied (revised edition). Munday, Jeremy ed. London and New York:
Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group,93-106.

Herrero, Isis and Todd Klaiman (eds.) (2012). Versatility in Translation Studies: Selected Papers
of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. Retrieved 08.2014
https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers
[Heteroglossia]. Retreived on 11. 09. 2015 from http://www.reference.com/heteroglossia/

High, Steven (2016). Research ethics. Concordia University- Centre for Oral History and Digital
Storytelling. Retreived 18.03.2016 http://storytelling.concordia.ca/toolbox/ethics

Hoffman, Eva (1989). Lost in Translation. A Life in a New Language. New York: Penguin
Books.
Hokenson, Jan Walsh and Marcella Munson (2007). The Bilingual Text: History and Theory of
Literary Self-Translation. Manchester, UK and Kinderhook (NY), USA: St. Jerome
Publishing.
Hokenson, Jan (2013). “History and the self-translator.” In Self-translation: Brokering
Originality in Hybrid Culture. Cordingley, Antony, ed. London, New Delhi, New York,
Sydney: Bloomsbury IATIS, 39- 61.

Holman Jones, Stacy (2005). “Autoethnography: Making the personal political” in Handbook of
qualitative research. Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 763-791.
Horton, Marion and John Grayson (2008). “Roma Research – the Context” in Roma New
Migrants:Local Research in the U.K: and European Context. Marion Horton and John
Grayson, eds. AdEd Knowledge Company LLP and BBEMI, pp. 8-10.
Horvat, Jožek (2008). Romski jezik = Romani čhib [Romani language]. Murska Sobota: Zveza
Romov Slovenije.

206
House, Juliane and Jochen Rehbein, eds. (2004). Multilingual Communication. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
House, Juliane, ed. (2014) Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Palgrave Advances in
Language and Linguistics Series. London: Palgrave Macmillan. E-book edition.
Hrushovski, Benjamin, ed. (1981). Poetics today: theory and analysis of literature and
communication. With International Editorial Board 1980-1981. Volume 2:4,
Summer/Autumn. Cambridge: Schenkman Publishing Company.
Hung, Eva, ed. (2005). Translation and Cultural Change: Studies in history, norms and image-
projection. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Inghilleri, M. (2003) Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially-situated
activity,International Journal of Translation Studies, 15, 2, 243-268.

Internet Movie Database (IMDB) (unknown). “Nedjo Osman” on the Internet Movie Database
(IMDB) website. Retrieved on 07.2014 from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0652063/
Jakobson, Roman (1959). “On linguistic aspects of translation” in Venuti, Lawrence, ed. (2004).
Translation Studies Reader. Taylor and Francis e-Library.
Jay-Rayon, Laurence (2008). “Compte rendu : Jan Walsh and Marcella Munson. The Bilingual
Text. History and Theory of Literary Self-Translation. Manchester, UK and Kinderhook
(NY), St. Jerome, 2007, 236 p.” in TTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction. 21:2,
Association canadienne de traductologie, pp. 256-266
Jinyu, Liu (2012). “Habitus of Translators as Socialized Individuals: Bourdieu’s Account” in
Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 2:6. Finland: Academy Publisher, pp. 1168-
1173.
Jones, R.Francis (2011). Poetry Translating as Expert Action. Processes, priorities and networks.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Jones, R. Fracis (2009). „Literary translation“. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies. Baker, Mona and Gabriela Saldanha eds. (1998/2009/2011). London and New
York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 152-157.
Juhász, Katalin (2009). Book Reviews “Jan Walsh Hokenson & Marcella Munson: The Bilingual
Text: History and Theory of Literary Self-Translation” in Across Languages and
Cultures. 10:1. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, pp. 155-160.
Jupp, Victor, ed. (2006) The Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods. London, Thousand
Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Karanth, Dileep, ed. (2010) Danger! Educated Gypsy. Selected Essays. Ian Hancock,
Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press.
Kellman G. Steven (2000). “Pourquoi [why] translingual?” in The Translingual Imagination.
Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press, 17-35.

207
Kemp, Charlote (2009). “Defininig multilingualism” in The Exploration of Multilingualism.
Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition.
Larissa Aronin and Britta Hufeisen, eds. vol. 6. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kenesei, Andrea (2010). Poetry Translation through Reception and Cognition: The Proof of
Translation is in the Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Kennedy, X.J. and Dana Gioia (1995). Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, and
Drama, Sixth Edition. New York: HarperCollins, 1790-1818. Retrieved on 20.01.2016
from http://home.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/spring97/litcrit.html)

Kenny, Dorothy (1998/2009/2011). “Corpora”. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation

Studies. Baker, Mona and Gabriela Saldanha, eds. London and New York: Routledge,
Taylor and Francis Group, 59-62.
Khalifa, Abdel-Wahab, ed.(2014) Translators Have Their Say?: Translation and Power of
Agency.Representation-Transformation/Representation-Transformation/ Representation-
Transformation: Translating Across Cultures and Societies Series. Berlin-Münster-
Wien-Zürich-London: Lit Verlag.
Klopčič, Vera (2013). “Pota romskega jezika” [Routes of the Romani language] in ŽELE,
Andreja, eds. Družbena funkcijskost jezika: (vidiki, merila, opredelitve)[Social function
of language: aspects, criteria, definitions]. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske
fakultete, pp. 213-218.
Kochanowski,Vania de Gila (1989). “Problems of the common Romany-problems of an
international language” in Jezik i kultura Roma. Sarajevo: Institut za proučavanje
nacionalnih odnosa.
Kochanowski, Vania de Gila (1963). Phonologie du tsigane d’Europe (Doctorat en linguistique
et dialectologie romani) in Gypsy Studies, 2 volumes 400p.in 40=o, New –Delhi.
Koller, Werner (1979). Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Uni-Taschenbücher 819.
Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
Kovats, Martin (2003). The politics of Roma identity: between nationalism and destitution 4.
Retrieved 09.2013 from www.openDemocracy.net
Krasnići, Alija (2012). Angluno Rromano-Srbikano Serbikano-Rromano Alavari/ Prvi Romsko-
Srpski Srpsko-Romski Rečnik. Subotica: Rromane Pustika-IP Romske Knjige.
Kuhiwczak, Piotr and Karin Littau, eds. (2007). A Companion toTranslation Studies. Topics In
Translation 34. Susan Bassnett and Edwin Gentzler, eds. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Kumakhova, Zarema (2005). Joseph Brodsky as Self-translator: Analysis of Lexical Changes in
his Self-translation. Volume 1. Dissertation. Michigan State of University: The
Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Languages.

208
Kussmaul, Paul (1995). Training the Translator. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Kyuchukov, Hristo and Jill de Villiers (2009). “Theory of mind and evidentiality in Romani-
Bulgarian bilingual children” in Psychology of Language and Communication. 13:2.
Retrieved 09.2014 http://hristokyuchukov.de/resources/ToM+and+Evidentiality.pdf
Laviosa, Sara (2010). “Corpora”. In Handbook of Translation Studies. Volume 1, Gambier, Yves
and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 80-87.
Lee, Ronald (2005). Learn Romani: Das-dúma Rromanes. Hertfordshire: U. Of Hertfordshire
Press.
Lee, Ronald (2008). “Roma in Europe: ‘Gypsy’ Myth and Romani Reality-New Evidence for
Romani History” in “Gypsies” in European Literature and Culture. Valentina Glajar
and Domnica Radulescu, eds. Palgrave Macmillan.
Lee, Ronald (2009). “Roma and Education” on Kopachi.com website. Retrieved 07.2012 from
http://kopachi.com/articles/roma-and-education-ronald-lee/
Lee, Ronald (2010). Rromano Alavari: Kalderashitska-Inglezitska/Romani Dictionary:
Kalderash-English. Toronto: Magoria Books.
Lee, Ronald (2011). Rromano Alavari: Inglezitska-Kalderashitska/ Romani Dictionary: English-
Kalderash. Toronto: Magoria Books.
Lee, Tong-King (2013). Translating the Multilingual City. Cross-lingual Practices and
Language Ideology. New Trends in Translation Studies Series. Vol. 8. Dr. Jorge Diaz
Cintas, ed.. Oxford, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Wien: Peter
Lang.
Lefevere, André (1992a). Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London
and New York: Routledge.
Lefevere, André (1998). “Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation” in Constructing
Cultures. Essays on Literary Translation. Susan Bassnet André Lefevere, eds. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Series, 12-24.
Lefevere, André, ed. (1992) Translation/History/Culture. A Sourcebook. London and New York:
Routledge.
Lennon, Brian (2010). In Babel’s Shadow. Multilingual Literatures. Monolingual States.
Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.
Lešić Zdenko, Hanifa Kapidžić-Osmanagić, Marina Katnić-Bakaršić and Tvrtko Kulenović eds.
(2006). “Novi historicizam I kulturni materijalizam” in Suvremena tumačenja
književnosti [New historicism and cultural materialism]. Sarajevo: Sarajevo Publishing.
Levi, Jirži (1982). Umjetnost prevođenja. Sarajevo: Svjetlost. (Preveo Bogdan L. Dabić)
Liegeois, Jan Paul (2009). Romi u Evropi. Zagreb: Ibis grafika.

209
Lindstedt, Jouko (2016). „Conflicting Nationalist Discourses in the Balkan Slavic Language
Area“. In The Palgrave Handbook of Slavic Languages, Identities and Borders.
Kamusella, Tomasz & Nomachi, Motoki & Gibson, Catherine, eds. Palgrave
Handbooks, 429 – 450.

Lockwood, William G. (1985) “Balkan Gypsies: An introduction” in Papers from the 4th and 5th
Annual Meetings. Joanne Grumet, ed. New York: Gypsy Lore Society, North America
Chapter.
Lorde, Audre (1983). Zami: a new spelling of my name. Berkley: The Crossing Press.
Malmkjaer, Kirsten (2005). Linguistics and Language of Translation. Edinburg University
Press.
Marcus, George E. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Maric, Alina, Virgil Bitu, Vera Klopčič, and Simon Tonelli (2001). South East Europe regional
project to promote employment opportunities for Roma : A Stability Pact Initiative
supported by the Austrian government : training workshop for the staff of local
employment services working with Roma job seekers : Workshop I - Slovenia (Novo
mesto, 3-5 October 2001). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Marsh, Adrian. 'No Promised
Land'. History, Historiography and the Origins of the Gypsies. PhD dissertation.
London: University of Greenwich, November 2008.
Marsh, Adrian (2008). No Promised Land. History, Historiography and the Origins of the
Gypsies. PhD dissertation. London: University of Greenwich. Retriveved 08.2014 from
http://gala.gre.ac.uk/8151/1/Adrian_Marsh_2008.pdf
Martin-Jones, Marilyn and Kathryn Jones, eds. (2000). Multilingual Literacies: Reading and
writing different worlds. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Martin-Jones, Marilyn, Adrian Blackledge and Angela Creese, eds. (2012). The Routledge
Handbook of Mulitilingualism. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis
Group.
Marushiakova, Elena and Popov, Veselin (2011). Roma Culture. Project education of Roma
children in Europe. Council of Europe. Retrieved 05.2014 from romafacts.uni-
graz.at/images/stories/pdf/c_1.1_culture-ii.pdf
Matras, Yaron (2002). Romani: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Matras, Yaron (2004). Romani: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. First published in 2002.
Matras, Yaron (2004). "Die Sprache der Roma: ein historischer Umriss (The Romani language:
An historical overview)." In Sinti, Roma, Gypsies, ed. Matras, Y., Winterberg, Hans,
Zimmermann, Michael. eds, 231 - 261. Berlin: Metropol.
Matras, Yaron (2005). The status of Romani in Europe, Report submitted to the Council of
Europe’s Language Policy Division. Manchester: University of Manchester. Retrieved

210
 02.2014, from.
http://romani.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/downloads/1/statusofromani.pdf
Matras, Yaron (2005a). “The full extent of fusion: A test case for connectivity and language
contact” in Kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte: Prozesse des Wandels in historischen
Spanungsfeldern Nordostafrikas/Westasiens. Akten zum 2. Symposium des SFB 295.
Bisang, W., Bierschenk T., Kreikenborn, D., and Verhoeven., eds. Würzburg: Ergon
Verlag, 241-255.
Matras, Yaron (2005b). “The Classification of Romani Dialects: A geographic-historical
perspective” in General and applied Romani linguistics. Schrammel, Barbara and
Halwachs, Dieter W., eds. Munich: Lincom Europa. Retrieved 01.2014.
http://romani.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/downloads/2/Matras_classification.pdf
Matras, Yaron (2008). “Dialects-i” brochure in Roma Factsheets, part of the Manchester Romani
Project and of the Council of Europe’s Education of Roma children in Europe project.
Retrieved 12.2014 from http://romafacts.uni-
graz.at/index.php/language/dialects/dialects-i
Matras, Yaron (2009). Language Contact. Cambridge University Press.
Matras, Yaron (2011). “Romani” in The Language and Linguistics in Europe, A Comprehensive
Guide. Bernd Kortman and John van der Auwera, eds. Göttingen: Walter de Gruyter
GmbH&Co.KG. Berlin/Boston.
Matras, Yaron (2013). Language and the rise of a transnational Romani identity. Romldent
Working Papers. Paper No. 24. Romani Project. University of Manchester.
Matras, Yaron, ed. (1995). Romani in Contact. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Matras, Yaron, Kyuchukov, H., and Bakker, P., eds. (1997). The Typology and Dialectology of
Romani. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Maybin, Janet and Karin Tusting (2011). “Linguistic ethnography” in The Routledge Handbook
of Applied Linguistics. Simpson James, eds. New York: Routledge, 515-528.
Mcilveen, Peter (2008). Autoethnography as a method for reflexive research and practice in
vocational psychology. Australian Journal of Career Development, 17(2), 13-20.
Retrieved on 15.02.2016 from
https://eprints.usq.edu.au/4253/1/McIlveen_2008_AJCD_Autoethnography.pdf

Meylaerts, Reine (2006). “Heterolingualism in/and translation” in Target. 18:1. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 1-15. Retrieved from
http://www.researchschool.org/intranets/MeylaertsHeterolingualismINTRO.pdf
Meylaerts, Reine (2010, revised in 2011). “Multilingualism and Translation” in Handbook of
Translation Studies, Volume 1. Gambier, Yves and Luc van Doorslaer, eds.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 227-230.
Meylaerts, Reine (2013). “Multilingualism as a challenge for translation studies” in The
Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies. Millán, Carmen and Francesca Bartrina,
eds. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. pp. 519-533.
211
Mihalicek, Vedrana and Christin Wilson, eds. (2011) Language Files: Materials for an
Introduction to Language and Linguistics. 11th edition. Columbus: The Ohio State
University Press.
Miklosich, Franz Xaver (1872-1881), Über die Mundarten und Wanderungen der Zigeuner
Europa's. Vienna.
Miklosich, Franz Xaver (1874). Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Zigeunermundarten. Vienna
Millán, Carmen and Francesca Bartrina, eds. (2013). The Routledge Handbook of Transaltion
Studies. New York: Routledge.
Mirga, Andžej and Mruz, Leh (1997). Roma/Differences and intolerance. Beograd: AKAPIT.
Montini, C. (2006). Traduire le bilinguisme: l’exemple de Beckett. Littérature 1(141), 101-114.

Montini, Chiara (2010). “Self-translation” in Handbook of Translation Studies. Volume 1. Yves

Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 306-
308.
Moranjak Bamburić, Nirma (2006). “Trauma-Memorija-Pripovijedanje” [Trauma-Memory-
Narration] in Sarajevske sveske. Sarajevo:Sarajevske sveske.
Moyer, G. Melissa (2008). “Research as Practice: Linking Theory, Method, and Data” in The
Blackwell Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Wei, Li and
Melissa G. Moyer, eds. Madden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 18-31.
Munday, Jeremy ed. (2009). The Routledge companion to Translation Studied (revised edition)
London and New York : Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Munday, Jeremy (2008/2012). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and applications.

London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. (e-book)
Muysken, Pieter (2013). “Two Linguistic Systems in Contact: Grammar, Phonology, and
Lexicon” in The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. 2nd Edition. “Blackwell
Handbooks in Linguistics” Series. Bhatia K. Tej and William C. Ritchie, eds.
Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 193-215.
Neumann, Birgit and Ansgar Nünning , eds.(2012). Traveling Concepts for the Study of Culture.
Walter de Gruyter GmbH and Co. KG, Berlin/Boston.

Ni, Lili (2009). „For „Translation and Theories.“ In English Language Teaching, CCSE Journal,
Vol.2, No.2, June 2009, 78-83. Retrieved on 24.03.2016 from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1082361.pdf

Nida, Eugene (1964/2000) . „Principles of correspondence.“ In The Translation Studies Reader.

Venuti, Lawrence ed. (2000). London and New York: Routlege, Taylor and Francis
Group, 126 – 141.

Niranjana, Tiranjana (1992). Siting Translation: History, Post-structuralism, and the Colonial
Context. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

212
Nord, Christiane. (1997) Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functional Approaches Explained.
Manchester: St Jerome.

Nord, Christiane (2013). “Functionalism in Translation Studies.” In The Routledge Handbook of

Transaltion Studies. Millán, Carmen and Francesca Bartrina, eds. New York: Routledge,
201-212.
Nykyri, Susanna (2010). Equivalence and Translation Strategies in Multilingual Thesaurus
Construction. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press.
Ong, Walter J. (1982/2002/2005). Orality and Literacy. The tehnologizing of the Word. London
and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Osman, Nedjo (2006). Gebäre mich nicht: Gedichte. [Don’t give birth to me: Poetry].
Weilerwist: Landpresse.
Osman, Nedjo and R. Đurić (2013). “Neđo Osman | Program na romskom | DW.DE |
16.10.2013” in Deutsche Welle.de website. Retrieved on 07.2014 from
http://www.dw.de/ne%C4%91o-osman/a-5314430
Osman, Nedjret Nedjo, Marion Menzel, Ali Erenler, A. Kadir Konuk, eds. (1999). Dört Dilden
Sii /Patrin. Istanbul: Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik.
Otsuji, Emi and Pennycook, Alastair (2010). “Metrolingualism: fixity, fluidity and language in
flux”. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7: 3, 240 — 254, First published on: 24
December 2009 (iFirst) To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14790710903414331

Pace, Steven (2012). “Writing the self into research: Using grounded theory analytic strategies in
autoethnograph” in TEXT, Special Issue: Creativity: Cognitive, Social and Cultural
Perspectives, eds. Nigel McLoughlin and Donna Lee Brien, April Retrieved 01.2015
from http://www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue13/Pace.pdf
Panou, Despoina (2013). „Equivalence in Translation Theories: A Critical Evaluation“. In
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol.3, No.1, pp. 1-6, January 2013. Academy
Publisher Manufactured in Finland. doi: 10.4304/tpls.3.1.1-6

Papo, Laura Bohoreta (2005). Sefardska žena u Bosni. [Sephardic woman in Bosnia]. Translation
from Jewish-Spanish to Bosnian by prof. Dr. Muhamed Nezirović. Sarajevo:
Connectum.
Paspati, Alexandros Georgios (1861). “Memoir on the language of the Gypsies, as now used in
the Turkish Empire” in Journal of the American Oriental Society. 7. New Haven.
Paspati, Alexandros Georgios (1870). Etudes sur les Tchinghianés ou Bohémiens de l'Empire
Ottoman. Constantinople.
Pennycook, Alastair and Emi Otsuji (2015). Metrolingualism. Language in the city. London
and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

213
Pereltsvaig, Asya (2012). Languages of the World. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Petrovski, Trajko and Cana Kozum (2008). Rječnik: Hrvatsko-romski. Romsko-hrvatski./Alavari:
Romane-kroatikane. Kroatikane-romane. Forum Roma Hrvatske; Centar kulture Roma
Hrvatske; Udruga Roma Istra-Pula; Zajednica Roma „Romsko jedinstvo“ PGŽ – Rijeka;
Udruga žena Romkinja “Bolja budućnost”-Zagreb; Udruga Roma Hrvatske “Zlatna
kobra” – Zagreb; Udruga Roma Međimurja; Mreža udruga Roma Hrvatske – Zagreb.
Bitola/Zagreb.
Pisac, Andrea (2012). “Književnost velikih i sociologija malih nacija” in Etnološka tribina 35.
vol. 42. London: Goldsmiths College, pp. 169-186.
Pokorn, K. Nike (2013). “Experience through translation - the translated experience: the Turkish
presence in Slovene literature and translation” in Accross Languages and Cultures. 14:2,
Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 167-181.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137-145.
Popovič, Anton (1976). A Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translation. Edmonton:
University of Alberta.
Pott, August Friedrich (1846). Über die Sprache der Zigeuner in Syrien, Zeitschrift für die
Wissenschaft der Sprache, 1. Halle
Pott, August Friedrich. (1844). Die Zigeuner in Europa und Asien. Halle.
Pratt, Mary Louise (1987). “Linguistic utopias” in The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments
Between Language and Literature. N. Fabb, D. Attridge, A. Durant and C. MacCabe,
eds. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Puhalo, Srđan (2009). Etnička distanca i (auto)stereotipi građana Bosne i Hercegovine/Ethnic
distance and (self) stereotypes of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sarajevo:
Freidrich Ebert Stiftung BiH.
Pym, Anthony (1998). Method in Translation History. Manchester: St Jerome.
Pym, Anthony (2000). Negotiating the Frontier: Translators and Intercultures in Hispanic
History. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Pym, Anthony (2002). Intercultures and the Interface with Nationalist Culture. Retrieved
07.2014 from http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/intercultures/intnation.pdf
Pym, Anthony (2004). Retrieved 12.12. 2015. “On the social and the cultural in Translation
Studies”.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.125.8915&rep=rep1&type=pd
f
Pym, Anthony (2004a). The Moving Text: Localization, translation, and distribution.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Pym, Anthony (2008). “On Toury’s laws of how translators translate” in Beyond Descriptive
Translation Studies. Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury. Anthony Pym, Miriam

214
 Shlesinger and Daniel Simeoni, eds. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 311-
328.
Pym, Anthony (2009). Training Translators. Retrieved 09.2014 http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-
line/training/2009_translator_training.pdf
Pym, Anthony (2010). Exploring Translation Theories. London/New York: Routledge.
Pym, Anthony (2011). “Translation Research Terms: A Tentative Glossary for Moments of
Perplexity and Dispute”, Papers on Research Methodology,
http://isg.urv.es/publicity/isg/publications/trp_3_2011/pym.pdf (Retrieved May 2014).
Print version in Anthony Pym (ed.): Translation Research Projects 3. Tarragona:
Intercultural Studies Group, 75-111. Page breaks differ between the two versions.
Pym, Anthony (2013). “Translation Studies in Europe – reason for it, and problems to work on”
in Target. 26:2, 185–205. Version 1.0. Retrieved 07.2014 from
http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/research_methods/2013_TS_Europe.pdf
Pym, Anthony Miriam Shlesinger and Daniel Simeoni, eds. (2008). Beyond Descriptive
Translation Studies. Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Quinn, Edward (2006). A Dictionary of Literary and Thematic Terms. Second Edition. New
York: Facts On File, Inc. An imprint of Infobase Publishing.
Râbacov, Ghenadie (2013). “Self-translation as mediation between cultures” In International
Journal of Communication Research. Volume 3, issue 1 January/March 2013, 66-69.
Riessman, Catherine Kohler & Speedy, Jane. (2007) “Narrative inquiry in the psychotherapy
professions: A critical review”. In D. Jean Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative
inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp.426-456). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage.
Ritchie, C. William and Tej K. Bhatia (2013). “Social and Psychological Factors in Language
Mixing” in The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Second Edition. Bhatia
K. Tej and William C. Ritchie, eds. “Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics” Series.
Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 375-390. e-book
Roberts, Brian (2002). Biographical Research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Robinson, Douglas (1997). Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theories Explained.
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Robinson, Douglas (2001). Who Translates? Translator Subjectivities beyond Reason. Albany:
SUNY Press.
Robinson, Douglas (2003). Performative Linguistics: Speaking and translating as doing things
with words. London: Routledge. (This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-
Library, 2004.)
Rogers, Henry (2005). Writing System: A linguistic Approach. Malden, Oxford,
Victoria:Blackwell Publishing.

215
Romaine, Suzanne (2013). “The Bilingual and Multilingual Community” in The Handbook of
Bilingualism and Multilingualism. 2nd Edition. “Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics”
Series. Bhatia K. Tej and William C. Ritchie, eds. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, 445-465.
[romani] Project, Universität Graz/ Dieter W. Halwaxhs, Retrieved 25 November 2015

Romani Project (unknown). “History of the Romani Language; Development Phases” on the
Romani Project website. Retrieved 02.2014 from
http://romani.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/whatis/language/develphases.shtml
Romaninet (2010). A multimedia Romani course for promoting linguistic diversity and improving
social dialogue: Report on Romani language. Retrieved 03.2013 and 01.2014 from
http://www.romaninet.com/ROMANINET_Linguistic_report.pdf
Roubaix, de Lelanie (2012). “Where boundaries blur” in Versatility in Translation Studies:
Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2011. Isis
Herrero and Todd Klaiman, eds. Retrieved 08.2014.
https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/files/de-roubaix.pdf.
Royle, Nicholas (2003). Jacques Derrida. Routledge Critical Thinkers Series. London and New
York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2003. Retrieved 06.2014 from
http://docs6.chomikuj.pl/1350853183,PL,0,0,Jacques-Derrida-%28Routledge-Critical-
Thinkers%29---Nicholas-Royle.pdf
Rüdiger, Johann Christian Christoph (1782/1990). Von der Sprache und Herkunft der Zigeuner
aus Indien. Leipzig 1782/Reprint Hamburg 1990.
Runnqvist, Elin, Ian Fitzpatrick, KristofStrijkers, and Albert Costa (2013). “An Appraisal of the
Bilingual Language Production System: Quantitatively or Qualitatively Different from
Monolinguals?” in The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. 2nd Edition.
“Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics” Series. Bhatia K. Tej and William C. Ritchie,
eds. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 244-265.
Rushdie, Salman (1991). Imaginary Homelands. Esays and criticism 1981-1991. New York:
Penguin Books and Granta.
Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović (1988). “Phiripe/Putovanja” in Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović (1988) Svjetlost u
Ponoć -E jak an-e jrat. Titograd: Sekcija pisaca-radnika Crne Gore Titograd, 34-35, and
re-printed in Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović (2012) Svjetlost u Ponoć /E jak an-e jrat.
Podgorica: Centar za očuvanje i razvoj kulture manjine Crne Gore CEKUM, 138.
Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović (2012). “Autoportreti/Autoportret” in Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović Svjetlost u
Ponoć /E jak an-e jrat. Podgorica: Centar za očuvanje i razvoj kulture manjine Crne
Gore CEKUM, 54.
Sachdev, Itesh, Howard Giles, and Anne Pauwels (2013). “Accommodating Multilinguality” in
The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Second Edition. Bhatia K. Tej and
William C. Ritchie, eds. “Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics” Series. Malden/Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing. pp. 391-416.

216
Saćip, Mehmed (1995). Sofrako miškuipe/Pomeranje sofre [Displaced Sofreh Table], adaptation
with assistance by Blagoje Savić. Priština: Novi Svet.
Saćip, Mehmed (1998). Mirikle. Gnjilane: Radio Gnjilane, Centar culture “Zarije R. Popović”,
Narodna biblioteka “Janko Veselinović”.
Saćip, Mehmed (2004). Kalendar. Subotica: Kulturni centar Roma, 2004.
Saćip, Mehmed-Meho (1984). Bučarne vasta [Diligent Hands]. Gnjilane: Književna sekcija
Čajupi.
Said, W. Edward (1999). Orijentalizam. –Zapadnjačke predodžbe o Orijentu- S engleskog: Rešad
Hafizović. Sarajevo: Svjetlost.
Santoyo, Julio-César (2013). “On mirrors, dynamics and self-translation” in Self-translation:
Brokering Originality in Hybrid Culture. Antony Cordingley ed. London, New Delhi,
New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury IATIS, pp. 27-38.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich (2012) in The Translation Studies Reader, 3rd edition, Lawrence
Venuti, ed. Routledge: London and New York, 43-63.
Schlyter, N. Birgit (2013). “Multilingualism and Language Renewal in Ex-Soviet Central Asia”
in The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. 2nd Edition. “Blackwell
Handbooks in Linguistics” Series. Bhatia K. Tej and William C. Ritchie, eds.
Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 871-898.
Sealey, Alison and Bob Carter (2004). Applied Linguistics as Social Science. London and New
York: Continuum.
Sejdić, Rasim (2012). “Gazisarde romane violina.” [Trampled Romani violin] in Sarajevske
sveske. “Antologija romske poezije” Series. Dragoljub Acković, ed. Sarajevo:
Sarajevske sveske, 39/40.
Sejdović, Ruždija-Ruso (1988). Svjetlost u Ponoć/-E jak an-e jrat [Light at midnight]. Titograd:
Sekcija pisaca-radnika Crne Gore Titograd.
Sejdović, Ruždija-Ruso (2012). Svjetlost u Ponoć /E jak an-e jrat [Light at midnight]. Podgorica:
CEKUM.
Shabnam, Shakernia (2013). “Study of Nida’s (formal and dynamic equivalence) and
Newmark’s (semantic and communicative translation) translating theories on two short
stories.” In Merit Research Journal of Education and Review (ISSN: 2350-2282) Vol. 2
(1) pp. 001-007, January 2013. Available online
http://www.meritresearchjournals.org/er/index.htm, Merit Research Journals ©2014.
Shuttleworth, Mark & Moira Cowie (2014). Dictionary of Translation Studies. New York and
London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. (First published 1997 by St. Jerome
Publishing), PDF e-book
(sic!). (sic!) Časopis za po-etička istraživanja i djelovanja website. Retrieved on 07.2014 from
http://www.sic.ba

217
Siegel, Jeff (2013). “Multilingualism, Indigenization, and Creolization” in The Handbook of
Bilingualism and Multilingualism. 2nd Edition. “Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics”
Series. Bhatia K. Tej and William C. Ritchie, eds. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, 517-541.
Siemund, Peter and Noemi Kintana, eds. (2008). Langauge Contact and Contact Languages.
Silverman, David (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.

Simon, Sherry (1996). Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission.
London and New York: Routledge.
Simon, Sherry (2006). Translating Montreal. Episodes in the Life of a Divided City.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006. Print.
Simon, Sherry (2011). “Hybridity and translation” in Handbook of Translation Studies, Volume
2. Yves Gambier and Luc Van Doorslaer, eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, pp. 49-53.
Simon, Shery (2012). Cities in Translation: Intersections of language and memory. London and
New York: Routledge, Taylor and Fracis Group.
Simon, Shery and Paul St-Pierre, eds. (2000). Changing the Terms. Translating in the
Postcolonial Era. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Simpson, James, eds. (2011). The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. London and New
York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Skomorokhova, Svetlana (2012). “Arising from the depths” (Kupala):A Study of Belarusian
Literature in English Translation. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Translation Studies. University
of Warwick, Department of English and Comparative Literary Studies. Retrieved
http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap/57199
Skomorokhova, Svetlana (2013). “The Belarusian literary landscape and translation ‘waves’” in
Translation Studies. 6:2. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 183–19.
Retrieved 12.2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2013.777515
Snell-Hornby, Mary (2006a). “The cultural turn of the 1980s” in The Turns of Translation
Studies by Mary Snell-Hornby. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company. 47-68.
Snell-Hornby, Mary (2006b). “The ‘interdisciplines’ of the 1980s” in The Turns of Translation
Studies by Mary Snell-Hornby. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1993). “The Politics of Translation.” In Outside in the Teaching
Machine, New York: Routledge 1993, 179-200. In The Translation Studies Reader.
Lawrence Venuti, ed. New York: Taylor and Francis e-Library, 2004, 397-416.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (2003). Death of a Discipline. The Wellek Library Lectures Series.
New York: Columbia University Press.

218
St. Clair, Robert N., Walter E. Rodríguez & Carma Nelson, eds. (2005). “Habitus and
Communication Theory” in Intercultural Communication Studies. XIV:1. Louisville:
University of Louisville.
Stanley, Liz (1990). „Moments of writing: Is there a feminist auto/biography?“ In Gender and
History, 2/1, 58-67.

Stecconi, Umbaldo (2010). “What happens if we think that translating is a wave?” in Translation
Studies. 3:1, Taylor & Francis, pp. 47-60.
Sturge, Kate (2007). Representing Others: Translation, Ethnography and the Museum.
Manchester, UK : St. Jerome Pub. ; Kinderhood, NY : InTrans Publications.
Summers, Krystal (2013). „(Re)Positioning the Indigenous Academic Researcher: A Journey of
Critical Reflexive Understanding and Storytelling.“ International Journal of Critical
Indigenous Studies Volume 6, Number 1, pg. 1-13. Retrieved 19.03.2016
http://www.isrn.qut.edu.au/publications/internationaljournal/documents/volume6_numb
er1_13-Summers.pdf

Tabouret-Keller, Andrée (2013). “Bilingualism in Europe” in The Handbook of Bilingualism and

Multilingualism. 2 nd Edition. “Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics” Series. Bhatia K.
Tej and William C. Ritchie, eds. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 745-769.
Tagore, Rabindranath (2001). “World Literature” in Rabindranath Tagore: Selected Writings on
Literature and Language. Sukanta Chaudhuri, ed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
pp. 138–150.
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina (2008). Dukh-Pain. Toronto: Magoria Books.
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina (2008a). “Do you hear” in The European Constitution in Verse.
Reybrouck Van and Vermeersch, eds. Brissel: Passa Porta, 45.
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina (2008b). “CV” in The European Constitution in Verse. Reybrouck
Van and Vermeersch, eds. Brissel: Passa Porta, 61.
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina (2009). Stare romske bajke i priče/Romane Paramicha Tuzla:
Bosanska riječ.
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina (2009a). Romani Stories and Legends of the Gurbeti Roma (for
adults). Toronto: Magoria Books.
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina, ed. (2009b) Like Water/Sar o paj. Chandigarh, India: Kafla Inter-
Continental.
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina (2010). Čuj, osjeti bol!/Ashun, hachar dukh! [Listen, feel the pain!].
Sarajevo: KNS.
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina (2010a). Bosansko-romski i romsko-bosanski rječnik/ Bosnaki-
Rromani thaj Rromani-Bosnaki alavari. Mostar: Federal Ministry of Education and
Science of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

219
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina (2011/2013). Romani Dictionary: Gurbeti-English/English-Gurbeti.
Toronto: Magoria Books.
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina (2012). ”Migration and its Implications for the Educational system:
The case of the Roma in Bosnia, Germany and Canada.” In: Formal and Informal
education for Roma, Different models and experience, Slovenia: Institut for Ethnic
Studies Ljubljana, 2012, 72-83.
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina (2012b). “Politike identiteta – osvrt na Rome [Identity politics -
reference to Roma]” in Kajtazi, V. Simpozij Svjetski dan romskog jezika [Symposium
International Day of the Romani language]. Zagreb: Udruga za promicanje obrazovanja
Roma u Republici Hrvatskoj “Kali Sara”, 22-24
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina (2013a). “Pitanje rodnog identiteta u poeziji autorice Bronislave Wajs
Papusze: Narodno stvaraštvo kod Roma i stereotipi prema Romima [The issue of gender
identity in the poetry written by Bronislava Wajs Papusza: Romani Folk Literature and
stereotipes towards Roma]” in Proceedings of World Day of Rromani Language 03.-05.
November 2011/2013, Zagreb. The Association for the Promotion of Education of Roma
in Croatia „Kali Sara“, Zagreb, 32-42.
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina (2014). “Romani Secret Road Symbols: The first written words in
Romani or the first translation of Romani” in Translators Have Their Say?: Translation
and Power of Agency. Khalifa, Abdel-Wahab, ed. Repesentation-
Transformation/Representation-Transformation/Representation-Transformation:
Translating Across Cultures and Societies Series. Lit Verlag: Berlin-Münster-Wien-
Zürich-London, pp. 65-82.
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina (2016). Rodni identiteti u književnosti romskih autorica na prostorima
bivše Jugoslavije. [Gender identity in the literature of Romani women authors in the
former Yugoslavia.] Federalno ministarstvo obrazovanja i nauke: Mostar.
Tahirović-Sijerčić, Hedina and Cynthia Levine-Rasky eds. (2017). A Romani Women's
Anthology: Spectrum of the Blue Water. Inanna Publications and Education Inc.:
Toronto, Canada, 2017.
Tassiopoulos, Eleftheria (2011). From Translation Research Projects 3, ed. Anthony Pym,
Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, 2011. pp. 43-52.
http://isg.urv.es/publicity/isg/publications/trp_3_2011/index.htm Received on
29.03.2016 from
http://www.intercultural.urv.cat/media/upload/domain_317/arxius/TP3/tassiopoulos.pdf

Taikon, Katarina (2006). Ciganske pesme [Romani songs], from Sweden translated by Moma
Dimić. Beograd: Rominterpres.
Temple, Bogusia (2006). „Representation across languages: biographical sociology meets
translation and interpretation studies“ Qualitative Sociology Review. Volume II, Issue 1 –
April 2006, 7-21.

220
Temple, Bogusia and Rosalind Edwards (2002). „Interpreters/Translators and Cross-Language
Research: Reflexivity and Border Crossings“ In International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, International Institut for Qualitative Methodology ( II QM); University of
Alberta 2002, 1 (2).

Theater TKO / Choreodrama - Romano Theater (2009). “‘Opera Nomadi’ Regie: Nedjo Osman”
on Facebook. Retrived 07.2014 from
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.347483781931750.99685.34042903930389
1&type=3
Theater TKO / Choreodrama - Romano Theater (2013). “TKO Romano Theatar Köln- RUKELI”
on Facebook. Retrived 07.2014 from
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.771445639535560.1073741832.340429039
303891&type=3
Thiong´o, wa Ngugi (1987). Decolonizing the Mind. Harare: Zimbabwe Publishing House (Pvt.)
Ltd.
Toninato, Paola (2004). The Rise of Written Literature among the Roma: A Study of the Role of
Writing in the Current Re-Definition of Romani Identity with Specific Reference to the
Italian Case. Doctoral Thesis submitted to the University of Warwick: Centre for
Translation and Comparative Cultural Studies, pp. 161-162. Retrieved 12.2014
http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap/1224
Toninato, Paola (2009). “The Making of Gypsy Diasporas” in Translocations: Migration and
Social Change. 5:1. Retrieved 08.2014 from
http://www.translocations.ie/docs/v05i01/Vol_5_Issue_1_c.pdf
Toninato, Paola (2014). Romani Writing. Literacy, Literature and Identity Politics. New York
and London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Toninato, Paola (unknown). “Dr Paola Toninato – Italian Studies – University of Warwick” on
University of Warwick website. Retrieved 11.2017.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/modernlanguages/people/toninato.
Toury, Gideon (1985). “A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies” in The Manipulation of
Literature. Studies in Literary Translation. Hermans, Theo ed. New York: Routledge,
pp. 16-41.
Toury, Gideon (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. PDF edition.
Toury, Gideon (1978/1995a) “The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation” (1978 version
revised in 1995) In (2004) The Translation Studies Reader. Lawrence Venuti, ed.,
London/ New York: Routledge, pp. 198–211.
Toury, Gideon (2012). Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond. Revised edition.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

221
Trinh, T. Minh-ha (1991). “No Master Territories” in When the Moon Waxes Red:
Representation, Gender and Cultural Politics. New York and London: Routledge, 49-
53.
Tulasiewicz, Witold and Anthony Adams (1998). Teaching the Mother Tongue in a Multilingual
Europe. London and New York: Continuum.
Tymoczko, Maria (1998). “Computerized Corpora and the Future of Translation Studies” in
Meta. 43:4, pp. 652-60.
Tymoczko, Maria (1999). “Post-colonial writing and literary translation” in Postcolonial
Translation. Theory and Practice. Bassnet, Susan and Harish Trivedi, eds. London and
New York: Routledge, pp. 19-40.
Tymoczko, Maria (2006). “Reconceptualizing Western translation theory. Integrating non-
Western thought about translation” in Translating Others. Vol. 1. Theo Hermans, ed.
Manchester: St. Jerome, pp. 13-32.
Tymoczko, Maria (2007/2010/2014). Enlarging translation, empowering translators.
Manchester, England: St. Jerome./ London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and
Francis Group.
Tyulenev, Sergey (2014). Translation and Society. An introduction. New York: Routledge.
Uhlik, Rade (1983). Srpskohrvatsko-Romsko-Engleski rječnik/Romengo Alavari [Serbocroatian-
Romani-English Dictionary]. Sarajevo: OOUR Izdavačka djelatnost Svjetlost.
Uhlik, Rade (1984). Context of thinking. To Roma - with love. Manuscript. Copy provided by
Romani muzeum in Belgrad.
Uhlik, Rade and Branko Radičević, eds. (1982) Ciganska poezija. Beograd: Vuk Karadžić.
Venuti, Lawerence (1995/1998). The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London
and New York: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence (1998). The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference, London
and New York:Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence (2004). “Translation, Community, Utopia” in The Translation Studies Reader.
2nd Edition, Lawrence Venuti (ed). New York: Routledge [Taylor and Francis e-
Library], 482-502.
Venuti, Lawrence ed. (2000). The Translation Studies Reader. London and New York:
Routlege, Taylor and Francis Group.
Venuti, Lawrence, ed. (1992) Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London
and New York: Routledge.
Vermeer, H. (1998). “Starting to Unask What Translatology Is About” in Target International
Journal of Translation Studies 10/1, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

222
Vermeer, J. Hans (2000). “Skopos and commission in translational action” in The Translation
Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 221-
232.
Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean Darbelnet (1958/1996/2000). “ A methodology for translation.” In
The Translation Studies Reader. Venuti, Lawrence ed. (2000). London and New York:
Routlege, Taylor and Francis Group, 84-93.
Vujanović, Vojislav (2013). “Usmena predaja i pjesništvo Roma” in Književnost. Retrieved
05.2013 from http://tacno.net/knjizevnost/vojislav-vujanovic-usmena-predaja-i-
pjesnistvo-roma/
Vukanović, Tatomir (1983). Romi (Cigani) u Jugoslaviji. Vranje: Štamparija Nova Jugoslavija.
Waliński, Jacek Tadeusz (2015). “Translation procedures.” University of Łódź, 55-67. Retrieved
from on 23.03.2016.
http://anglistyka.uni.lodz.pl/userfiles/Walinski%202015%20Translation%20procedures.
pdf
Weber, Jean-Jacques and Kristine Horner (2012). Introducing Multilingualism. A social
approach. London/New York: Routledge.
Wei, Li (2008) “Research Perspectives on Bilingualism and Multilingualism” in The Blackwell
Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Li Wei and Melissa G.
Moyer, eds. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp. 3-17.
Wei, Li (2013). “Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Bilingualism and Multilingualism
Research” in The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Second Edition.
Bhatia K. Tej and William C. Ritchie, eds. “Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics”
Series. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 26-51.
Wei, Li (2014). “Translanguaging knowledge and identity in complementary classrooms for
multilingual minority ethnic children” in Classroom Discourse. 5:2. London and New
York: Taylor & Francis, retrieved http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2014.893896
Wei, Li and Melissa G. Moyer, eds. (2008) The Blackwell Guide to Research Methods in
Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Malden, Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Williams, James (2005). Understanding Poststructuralism. Understanding Movements in
Modern Thought Series, Jack Reynolds, ed. Bucks: Acumen.
Williams, Jenny (2013). Theories of Translation. Palgrave Textbooks in Translating and
Interpreting Series. Margaret Rogers, ed.
Williams, Jenny and Andrew Chesterman, eds. (2002). The Map. A Beginner's Guide to Doing
Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Wilson, Rita (2009). “The Writer’s Double: Translation, Writing, and Autobiography.” Romance
Studies, Vol.27 No.3, July, 2009, 186-198. Retrieved 04.2015.
http://www.academia.edu/953906/The_Writers_Double_Translation_Writing_and_Auto
biography

223
Wilson, Rita (2011). “Transplanted Subjects: Self-translation Processes in Translingual
Narratives” in Oltreoceano: L’autotraduzione nelle letterature migranti,. vol. 5. Official
publication of Oltreoceano - Centro Internazionale Letterature Migranti (CILM). 123-
138. Retrieved 08.2014
http://riviste.forumeditrice.it/oltreoceano/article/download/453/430
Wlislocki, von Heinrich (1994). Zur Ethnographie der Zigeuner in Südosteuropa. Frankfurt/M.
in Hancock, Ian (2010). Danger Educated Gypsy, in Djurić, Rajko (2010). Istorija
romske književnosti, in Djurić, Rajko (1987). Seobe Roma, in Demir and Durmiš (2012).
Gramatika romskoga jezika/Gramatika e romane čhibaki.
Wolf, Michaela ( 2000). “The ‘Third Space’ in Postcolonial Representation.” In Changing the
Terms.Translating in the Postcolonial Era, Sherry Simon and Paul St-Pierre (eds), 127 –
145. Ottawa: Univ ersity of Ottawa Press.

Wolf, Michaela (2010). “Sociology of translation” in Handbook of Translation Studies, Volume

1. Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 337-343.
Wolf, Michaela (2014). “The Sociology in Translation and its “activist turn. ” In The
Sociological Turn in Translation and Interpreting Studies. Angelelli, V. Claudia, ed.
John Benjamins Publishing Company, 7-21.
Wolf, Michaela and Alexandra Fukari, eds. (2007). Constructing a Sociology of Translation.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Young, Robert J.C. (1995). Colonial Desire. Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race. New
York and London: Routledge.
Zabic, Snezana and Paula Kamenish (2006). “A Survey of Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian Poetry
in English Translation in the U.S. and Canada.” in CLCWeb: Comparative Literature
and Culture, 8:3, art. 5 Purdue University Press, Retrieved 08.2014
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1317&context=clcweb
Zatreanu, Mihaela and Halwachs, W. Dieter (2003). Romani in Europe. Ministry of Education
and Research – Bucharest Romania/ Department of Linguistics at the University of Graz
/ Austria Retrieved 01.2014 from
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/roma/Source/RomaniEurope_EN.pdf
Žižek, Slavoj (1987). The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso.

224
Annex I – BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Avdić, Šemso (1950 - .. )

Šemso Avdić (born in 1950 in Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina) has published six
books of poetry in Romani and Bosnian languages that have been translated into German,
English, French, Spanish and Italian. A collection of his poems was published in 1986 at
the Messina Festival of the writers who write in minority languages, and won the third prize in
Europe. The title of this poetry book is Zingari/Cigani [Gypsies]. Šemso published the following
collections: Zingari Tra Passato e Presente /Cigani izmedju prošlosti i budućnosti [Gypsies
between past and future], Krvari cigansko srce, [Gypsy heart bleeds], Romi od rodjenja do smrti
[Roma from born to death] and Cigani danas i juče /Zingare ieri e oggi [Gypsies today and
yesterday] which published “Centro studio zingari” in Bolzano in Italy in 1993. The sixth book
was published in 2011 in Bosnia and Herzegovina under the title Ciganska sudbina lancima
okovana [Gypsy fate bound with chains]. His memoirs on Romani people from Banja Luka were
published in the book titled Karta u jednom smjeru: Odiseja Roma Banjaluke krajem XX vijeka
[One-way ticket: Odyssey of Roma from Banjaluka at the end of XX century]. The book was
published by Grafid d.o.o. Banja Luka in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in 2014.

Berberski, Slobodan (1919 - 1989)

Slobodan Berberski was born on 20 October 1919 in Zrenjanin, where he completed his
elementary and high school. He began to study law, but as a member of the Communist Youth,
was arrested in 1941. He wrote and published in the Serbian language and some of his published
books are: Za kišom biće duga [After the rain, a rainbow] (1950); Proleće i oči [Spring and eyes]
(1952); Nevreme [The storm] (1959); Dnevnik rata [Diary of War] (1959); Kote [There] (1968);
Svakodnevnica [Everyday Life] (1983); etc. His poetry has been translated into Romani, French,
Russian, Hungarian, Romanian, Albanian, and Slovenian languages. Slobodan Berberski is the
first president of the World Roma Organization and was elected during the first World Romani
Congress, held on 8 April 1971 in London. One street in Belgrade now bears his name. He died
in 1989 in Belgrade.

225
Borde, Andrew (1490? – 1549)

Andrew Borde (Andrew Boorde) was Traveller born ca. 1490 near Cuckfield, Sussex, He
was an English travel writer and a doctor by profession. His book Dyetary was the first English
book of domestic medicine. This book followed Boke of the Introduction of Knowledge, The
Boke of Berdes (Beards), Handbook of Europe and Itinerrary of England (Cousin 2014, e-
book)166. Borde died in April 1549.

Demir, Ljatif (1961 - .. )

Ljatif Demir was born in 1961 in Skopje, Macedonia. In addition to his work on language
and linguistics, he is a writer and translator. He has published Izbrani pesni/ Mahatma -Alusarde
gilja- Garcia Lorka [Selected poems from Garcia Lorca] (Skopje: Studentski zbor, 1996), Dečije
priče [Children stories], Skopje: Studentski zbor: Skopje, 1996.

Dimić, Trifun (1956 -2001 )

Trifun Dimić was born on 29 February 1956 in the small town Gospođinci in Vojvodina,
Serbia. He lived in Novi Sad and worked as a consultant for the Cultural and Educational
Association of Vojvodina. He died on 13 September 2001 in Novi Sad. He has published this
book: Dolazeći s vašara/Kana avavas ando foro [Coming from afar] (1979); Romske kletve,
zakletve i blagoslovi [Roma curses, oaths and blessings] (1984); Narodna romska poezija
[Romani traditional poetry] (1986); a translation of Novi Testament [The New Testament] (1991);
a translation of Pjesma nad pjesmama [Song of Songs] (1991); Gilgameš [Gilgamesh] (adapted
to Romani, 1996); Vreme samoće [Time of Solitude] (1996), Tradicijska romska književnost
[Traditional Romani literature] (1997); Stopala u prašini [Feet in the dirt] (1998).

More information at http://riznicasrpska.net/knjizevnost/index.php?topic=414.0

Djuric, Rajko (1947 - .. )

Rajko Djurić was born on October 3rd 1947 in Malo Orašje, Serbia. He is a Serbian
Romani writer and academic. He studied philosophy, physical chemistry and theology at the
University of Belgrade’s Faculty of Philosophy (1967–1972). In 1986 he obtained a Doctorate of

166
Cousin, W. John. Dictionary of Englsih Literature. The University of Adelaide, last updated in December 2014,
e-book. Retrieved April 2015. https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/cousin/john/biog/b.html

226
Sociology after completing his dissertation on “The Culture of the Roma in S.F.R. Yugoslavia”.
In 1991 he moved to Berlin in order to avoid involvement in the Yugoslavian wars. He wrote
more than 500 articles and, until leaving Yugoslavia, was the chief redactor for the cultural
section of the newspaper Politika in Belgrade. He was President of the International Romani
Union and is the General Secretary of the Romani Centre of International PEN. His literary
works have been translated into more than five languages. Since 1969 he has published more than
35 books.

In his books of poems, the topics dealt with are about language and speech, and the
history of the Roma and Holocaust, in particular man's fear of death. His books have been
published in Serbian, German and in the Romani language. Among other things, he is author of
the books Gramatika romskog jezika [Grammar of the Romani language], Pravopis romskog
jezika [Spelling of the Romani language] and of the monograph Romi sveta [Roma of the world]
co-authored with Nebojsa Tomasević. In addition to his work on linguistics, he is a published
poet:

Bi kheresko-Bi limoresko / Bez doma bez groba [Without home without grave] in Romani
and Serbian (Beograd: Narodna knjiga Slovoljublje, 1979); Purano svato o dur themestar/
Prastara reč daleki svet [The ancient word distant world] in Romani and Serbian (Beograd:
Narodna knjiga Slovoljublje 1980); A i U - A thai U [A and U] in Serbian and Romani
(Beograd,1982); Duša i pepeo pesme [Soul and ash] in Serbian (Vršac: Biblioteka KOV, 2007);
and Zigeunerische Elegien-Gediche in Romani und Deutch [Gypsy elegies-Poems in Romani and
German], (self-translation) (Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 1989).

Eminova, Akile (1961 - .. )

Akile Eminova was born in Štip, Macedonia in 1961. She works as a journalist and a
freelance writer. Akile writes exclusively in the Macedonian language even though her mother tongue is
Romani. Her work: Amanet.[Testament] a novel in Macedonian ( Štip: Kulturno-prosvjetna

Zajednica, 1995); and Tancot na dušata. [Dance of the soul] a novel in Macedonian (Štip:
Venecija, 2001).

Franz, Philomena (1922 - .. )

227
 Philomena Franz was born in 1922 in Biberachu on Riss in Germany. As a seven year old
girl she performed as a folk dancer and singer in a theater group. In 1943 she was sent to
Auschwitz and later to concentration camps in Ravensbrück and Oranienburg. She mainly writes
Romani stories and organizes literary reading classes in schools and universities and lives in
Rösrath near Cologne.

Haliti, Bajram (1955 - .. )

Bajram Haliti was born on 21 May 1955 in Gnjilane, Kosovo. He is a celebrated Romani
author who is active in Romani causes. His books have won many awards, including several
prizes in the annual “Amico Rom” contest in Italy. His work was included in the 1998
publication of The Roads of Roma: A PEN Anthology of Gypsy Writers. Haliti has also published
Poema katar e Mum Tadž Mahal/ Poema o Mum Tadž Mahal [Poem about Mum Taj Mahal]
(Batajnica: Memorijalni centar Roma za holocaust studije Srbije i Crne Gore, 2004) and
Čehrajine sune/ Zvezdani snovi [Starry dreams] (Zagreb: Udruga “Romski putevi”, 2008).

Hancock, Ian (1942- ..)

Ian Hancock or Yanko le Redžosko ( his Romani name) was born and raised in England. In1971
he became a linguist throught PhD graduation. He is a Romani scholar, professor, Romani
activist and one of the main contributors in the field of Romani studies. Hancock is director of the
Program of Romani Studies and the Romani Archives and Documentation Center at the
University of Texas at Austin where he was a professor of English, linguistics and Asian Studies
since 1972. In 1998 he was appointed by President Clinton to represent Roma on the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Council. His valuable work in the field of Romani Studies is represented in
over 300 publications. Some of his works: The Pariah Sindrome: An Account of Gypsy
Persecution and Slavery (1987), A Handbook of Vlax Romani (1995), We are the Romani
people/Ames am e Rromane džene (2002/2005/2007), „Language Corpus and LanguagePolitics:
The Case of the“Standardization of Romani“. In Nation-Building, Ethnicity and Language
Politics in Transition Countries (2003), “On Romani Origins and Identity: questions for
discussion” In Gypsies and the problem of identity: contextual, constructed and contested
(2006), Danger! Educated Gypsy. Selected Essays (2010), .“Mind the Doors! The contribution
of linguistics.” In All Change! Romani Studies through Romani eyes (2010).

228
Jusuf, Šaip (1932 or 1933 – 2010)

Šaip Jusuf was born and died in Skopje, Macedonia. He was teacher and writer. Jusuf was
one of organizers of the First Word Romani Congress in 1971 in London and was a member of
the International Romani Union. His whole work was dedicated to Romani language and India
which he visited several times. This love brought him to convert from Islam to Hinduism. The
Romani Gramatika/Romska gramatika he co-authored with Krume Kepeski was published in
1980 by “Naša Kniga” in Skopje as bilingual in Macedonian and Romani is the most valuable
work which he did in his lifetime. He was also translator and his translation of the book by Drago
Zdunić Mi smo Titovi, Tito je naš (1978), Šaip Jusuf translated into Romani in 1979 titled Amen
sam e Titoske, o Tito si amaro. In 1989 in Jezik i Kultura Roma/ Romani Language and Culture,
ed. Milan Šipka, his article “O nekim padežnim sufiksima I o formama romskog određenog člana
u svetlu uticaja turskog i grčkog jezika sa primedbama o poželjnim merama za očuvanje čistote
jezika Roma” /”On Some Case Suffixes and Forms of Romany Definite Article in the Light of
Turkish and Greek Language Influence together with Remarks about Desirable Procedure for
keeping the Purity of Romany Language” was published by Štamparija “DES” in Sarajevo.

Krasnići, Alija (1952 - .. )

Alija Krasnići was born in 1952 in the village Crkvena Vodica, near Obilić in Kosovo. He
writes poetry and fiction for children and adults. His published work by “Jedinstvo” in 1981 is
prose published in the Romani and Serbocroatian languages titled «Čergarske vatre” /
“Čergaređe jaga [Nomad‘s fire]”. In 1985, the publisher Rilindja published his “Romske
pripovetke s Kosova” / “Perralla rome te Kosoves” [Romani tales from Kosovo]. In 1986, with
the publisher Jedinstvo he published a collection of prose in Serbocroatian and Romani in a self-
translated work titled “Povratak u život” / “Iripe ano đuvdipe” [Return to life]. In 1988 with the
publisher Rilindja he had a collection of poems published in the Albanian language, with self-
translation in Serbocroatian titled “Umorne noći”/“Netet e lodhura” [Weary nights or Tired
nights]. According to him, throughout the course of our conversations, he has written more than
90 books of prose and poetry.

229
Muc, Jožek Horvat (1965 - .. )

Jožek Horvat Muc was born in 1965 in Murska Sobota, Slovenia. He is president of the
Union of Roma of Slovenia and the Roma Community Council of the Republic of Slovenia. He
wrote two performances in Romani and Slovenian; Radfalu paunji/ Krvava voda [Bloody water]
(Murska Sobota: Romsko društvo Romani Union, 1999) and Hegeduva/ Violina [The violin]
(Murska Sobota: Zvezda Romov Slovenije, 2002). His poetry books Ciden andi mro aunav/
Plesala zame[Danced for me]( Murska Sobota: Zvezda Romov Slovenije, 2005) and Amaro
drom/ Naša potk [Our way] ( Murska Sobota: Zvezda Romov Slovenije, 2006) were also
published in Romani and Slovenian.

Nikolić, Jovan (1955 - .. )

Jovan Nikolić was born in Belgrade, Serbia in 1955 and currently is resident of Germany.
He is best known in Germany for his novel Bela vrana, crno jagnje [White Crow, Black Sheep]
published in German translation by Bärbel Schulte as Weißer Rabe, schwarzes Lamm with
Klagenfurt; Drava Verlag, Romani Library in 2006. Some of his other works include Gost
niotkuda/ Dosti khatinendar [A Guest from Nowhere] in Serbian and Romani languages (1981
Vršac: Književna opština); Đurđevdan [St George's Day] (Vršac: Beograd 1987); Neću da se
rodim [I Don’t Want to Be Born] (Ivanjica: 1991); Oči pokojnog jagnjeta [The Eyes of the Late
Lamb] (Niš:1993); Telo i okolina [Body and Environment] (Belgrade: 1994); and Soba s točkom
[The Room with a Wheel] (2004, Klagenfurt/Celovec and 2011 in Serbian).

Paćaku, Kujtim (1959 - .. )

Kujtim Paćaku was born in 1959 in Prizren, Kosovo. He finished his Masters degree in
music pedagogy. Some of his published work: Baxtalo drom/ Felice Cammino [Happy way], a
poetry collection in Romani and Italian (Italia: Amico Rom,1996); Purane rromane
paramisǎ/Përallat e vjetra rome [Romani old stories], prose in Romani and Albanian (Tirana:
Albania, 2002); Sumnakuni Phurt [Golden Bridge], a collection of poetry translated in Albanian,
Serbian and English. ( Prizren: Rromani baxt, 2007); Jekh than tal-o kham [One place under the
sun], a collection of poetry translated in Albanian, Serbian and English (Rromani Baxt:Prizren,
2012).

230
Papusza, Bronislawa Wajs ( 1908 or 1910 – 1987)

In the twenties, at the time when Papusza was growing up, literacy among Roma almost
did not exist, so they beat her when they caught her reading, and destroyed her books and
magazines. “So how did I learn? I asked children who went to school to show me how to write
letters. I always stole something and brought it to them so they would teach me, and so I learned
a b c d, and so on. Then when I was thirteen years old, I was skinny and as nimble as a wood
squirrel, only I was black. I read and Gypsies laughed at me for that and they spat at me.” (Anon.
on The Orlando Sentinel website). Despite tradition and patriarchal community, she defended her
wish, when the time came, to marry the young man she wanted. However, when she was fifteen,
she was entered into an arranged marriage with an old and esteemed harpist, Dionizy Wajs. She
was very unhappy and had no children. Like most Roma songs, Papusza’s songs were
lamentations of poverty, of yearnings of impossible love and for the loss of freedom. Her songs
were equally sad in tone as well as subject. Papusza wrote and sang about certain events and
places. She wrote about the suffering she was a witness to. Most interesting of all was the
reconstruction of the events that led Bronislawa Wajs Papusza to be virtually expelled from the
Roma community, which had a devastating effect on her psyche. She spent eight months in a
psychiatric hospital in Silesia, and for thirty-four years afterward she lived alone and isolated
until her death in 1987.

Ranjičić, Gina (1830 – 1891)

The date of birth of Gina Ranjičić has not been determined, but it is probably close to
1830. She was born of Serbian Roma. At one time their tribe was suspected of theft and was
expelled by Serbian soldiers. Gina then rebelled against their community and when she was
twelve years old she moved to Belgrade. There she took care of an Armenian merchant, who
gave her the possibility to pursue a three-year education with a private tutor. Gina later married
the merchant’s younger brother. Gina's life was full of friction. She fell in love with an Albanian,
whom she called Šiptar in her poems. He was essentially her unrequited love. Over time, Gina
became increasingly bitter and she divorced. After the divorce she sometimes lived in luxury and
abundance and sometimes in the greatest misery. After a short period of time, she again returned
to live with her own Romani community. She died on the 7th of May in 1891. She was buried in
an unmarked grave somewhere in Slavonia. Gina once said: “When I was happy, I did not write

231
any songs...” One alleged connoisseur of Roma, doctor Vlislocki, tried to translate the songs by
Gina Ranjičić into German. However, his translation was completely arbitrary and insensitive to
what is most important, and is full of sentimental ornamentation. However, his choice to translate
her songs has encouraged the interest of others, so much so that her poetry was translated into
Swedish.

She was the first Roma poet in Serbia, as some people propose, who wrote Romani folk
poetry in her native Romani language in the mid-19th century, but in Serbia became known at the
end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries.

Sejdić, Marko Aladin (1970 - .. )

Marko Aladin Sejdić was born in 1970 in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Hercegovina. He is son of
the poet Rasim Sejdić. He published the first songs in Romani and German in a joint collection of
poems titled Kali Čirikli / Der Schwarze Vogel [Black bird] (Köln: Rom e.V. Köln und die
literarischen Gruppe rromano pero, 2008) with Steva Stojko, Hanci Biher and Ruždija Sejdović.
His poetry book titled Me avav dural [I come from afar] (Milano: I.S.U. Università Cattolica,
2000) is published in Romani and German. Also, Marko Aladin Sejdić lives in Italy and
Germany.

Sejdić, Rasim (1943-1981)

Rasim Sejdić (1943-1981) was born in Vlasenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina and
belonged to the Xoraxano – Gurbeti Romani group. His poems were published in Italy in
Romani and in Italian under the title Rasim, poeta Zingaro (Milano: Publi and Press, 1978). One
of his best known poems is Gazisarde romane violina. He died in age of thirty seven.

Serbezovski, Muharem (1950 - .. )

Muharem Serbezovski was born on May 2, 1950 in Skopje, Macedonia in the Romani
mahala Šuto Orizari. He graduated in Philosophy in Sarajevo and has written more than three
hundred songs and poems. He also translated the Qur'an into the Romani language in 2005
(Sarajevo: Romano Lil). He used to live in Germany and now lives in Sarajevo, Bosnia and
Herzegovina. He has published Putevi vjetrova i Cigana/E bravalendže thaj e Romendže droma
[Ways of the winds and Gypsies: poetry] (Sarajevo: Bosanski kulturni centar, 1999); Šareni

232
dijamanti [Colourful diamonds], a novel in Serbocroatian (Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, 1983);
Cigani «A” kategorije [Gypsies of «A” category], a novel in Serbocroatian (Sarajevo: Veselin
Masleša, 1985).

Stojka, Ceija(1933 – 2013)

Ceija Stojka was born on May 23 rd 1933, in Kraubath, Syria is an Austrian-Romani

writer, painter and musician who survived the Holocaust. She belonged to the Lovari caste, and
she was the fifth of six children. She is the sister of Charles Stojko and Mongo Stojko, who were
also writers and musicians. Her books: Wir leben im Verborgenen. Erinnergungen einer
Rom_Zigeunerin. (1980) [We live in Seclusion. The Memories of a Romni.], Reisende auf
dieser Welt (1992) [Travellers on This World], Meine Wahl zu schreiben-ich kann es nicht.
Gedichte. (2003) [My Choice to Write-I can not. Poems], Me dikhlem suno (Audio CD) [I
dreamt], Träume ich dass ich lebe? Befreit aus Bergen-Belsen (2005) [Am I dream that I live?
Liberated from Bergen-Belsen]. She died on January 28th, 2013.

Taikon, Katarina (1932 – 1995)

Katarina Taikon was born on July 29th 1932 in a Roma tent nearby Erebr in Sweden, one
hundred kilimeters west from Stockholm. Her paternal grandfather was Kori Kori Kaldaraš
originally from Hungary and he was traveling with his community around Europe and Russia.
Katarina’s father’s name was Johan (not the same as his Romani name) and he was born in
France. At the time when Katerina Tajkon wrote (she was the first Roma writer in Sweden)
throughout all Sweden there were not more than 900 Roma, of which a good half lived in tents.
Since the beginning of the sixties she has created and writes continuously. Almost every year at
least one new title has appeared in the field of poetry, documentary prose, debate, etc., and there
are novels for both children and adults, as well as her inclusions in anthologies and translations.
All her books are hugely popular within and outside of Sweden, and the most popular one is her
title for children, Katica.

Katarina Taikon edited the book of the Romani songs titled "Zigenar Dikter" published by
FIBs Lyrikklubb in Stokholm in 1964. She translated more than fifty Romani folk-songs from
England, Romania and from the former Yugoslavia from the collection edited by Rade Uhlik. In
this book are published four songs by Gina Ranjičić (1830-1891.)

233
Annex II - ANALYSED POEMS

Poems by Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović

Title Phiripe/Putovanja [Traveling]
Language pair/s Romani (Gurbeti dialect-Xoraxano)– Serbo-Croatian

PHIRIPE
Zurarrdam amare zeja po brršind Pod vedrim se nebom
thaj xalam vraćamo
šel metre drom. među ljude.
Pe amari sinija maladol
e jag Na sofri nam ostaše
e djili. i oči
O čhavrro maladol. i jezik.

Tala
o nango del TRAVELING
irisavah We forged our backs on the rain
maškar e manuša. and ate
hundreds of meters of road.
Pe sinija ačhile, A dining table can be found
thaj e jakha a flame
thaj e čhib... a song.
A child can be found.
PUTOVANJA
Kalili smo leđa na kiši Under a clear sky we
i pojeli return
stotinu metara puta. among people.
Na našoj se sofri nađe
i oganj On our dining table remained
i pjesma. eyes
Dijete se nađe. and language.

234
Poems by Ruždija-Ruso Sejdović
Title: Autoportreti/Autoportret [Self-portrait]
Language pair/s: Romani (Mix dialects) -Serbian

AUTOPORTRETI Negde se stapa ruka

Paso nemoćni lik stvara,
me ʒuvdimasqo, nakite obrazu,
fiza me isanosqi. kostima svojim kači,
Izravne vastesa kerdo izlizane djelove izobličava...
biramime tasvir,
kalǎrrdi Zagrižen prostor,
ćarrli strafin devlesqi, predosjećanje
xoxavno kolorit! umjetnikove naivnosti
i nevjerstvo pozadine.
An-o maśkar ćhelavni ćakra,
izravni aura dukhavnesqi. Uplašena pojava,
čovjek,
Varindě o vast bilal stanje nepoznate svijesti...
bizorale mosta kerel,
kleja ćhamenqe, SELF-PORTRAIT
me kokalenge umblavel, Mark
xale narie trujarel... of my life,
contour of my appearance.
Drabarrno than, With unsure hand stretched is the
haćaripe unframed drawing,
artistikane bireslimasqo darkened
thaj phukavipe e palalimasqo. dried clarity of the sky
false colour!
Darano ʒeno,
manuś, In the middle a trembling chakra,
bipinʒarrde godǎqo... the trembling aura of the suffering one.

AUTOPORTRET Somewhere a hand merges

to create a powerless likeness,
Otisak jewels to the cheek,
mog života, bones with one’s own hangs,
kontura moje pojave. shabby pieces disfigures.
Nesigurnom rukom razvučen
neuramljen crtež, Bitten space,
potamnjela intuition
usahla vedrina neba of artist’s naivete
lažni kolorit! and disloyality of the background.

U sredini treperava čakra, Scared appearance,

drhtava aura paćenika. Human being
state of unknown consciousness…

235
Poems by Mehmed-Meho Saćip
Title: Cahra/Čerga [Romani tent]
Language pair/s: Romani (Kosovo Arli dialect) -Serbian

CAHRA
Avdive akate tajsa avre thaneste O verigama kotlić
Avdive dikheala tajsa nanetani pun vode
Lakri majšukar amalin U njemu bilje svakojako
i čar, i len hem dajekh bar Za sirotinjsku večeru

O anav lakro cahra Okolo vatre posedala deca

Adžahar pendjardi Na reci se konji poje
Dajekh drom tu da dikhela Sve je to oko čerge moje
Lakri jag thaj lakro thuv

Ko trin kašta o kotlo čhivdo ROMANI TENT

So pherdžape pani Today here tomorrow there
Andro pani thaj savena čarja Today you see her tomorrow you don’t
Čerdžola jek čorba sani Her most beautiful friends
Meadows rivers stones
O čhavore uzali jag bešen
Grastenge da delape pani Her name is tent
A sa odova i čerga i romani Known to all the world
And you saw sometimes
ČERGA Smoke and fire of the tent
Danas je ovde sutra tamo
Danas je vidiš sutra ne Onto the pothook is put the kettle
Njene su najlepše drugarice Full of water
Poljane reke kamenje In the water all sorts of herbs
For an impoverished supper
Ime joj je čerga
Celom svetu znana Around the fire are seated children
I ti si nekada video Along the river horses drink water
Dim i vatru čerge All of this is around my tent.

236
Poems by Nedjo Osman
Title: Ma bijan man/ Beni dogurma/ Gebäre mich nicht /Nemoj me
rađati/[Don’t give me to birth]
Language pair/s: Romani (Kovach (Bugurdji) Arli and Djambasi dialect) –
Turkish-German-Serbian

dert çekmek için yaratildim

MA BIJAN MAN çalişmak icin büyüdüm
Okole plajeste mo dat yaşlandim lime lime
cinelsine pus
javere grastenge. ölürsem
Okole cergate mi daj çiçekleri sulayin
bijanel sine birakin çimen büyüsün
djikana o kam takarel i puf. ölürsem birakin koşsun atlar
Te djanav sine trin lafija kuşlarima yildizlar baksin
anglal te bijangljovav o altin baliklar yesin
ka vakeravav sine ben öldüğümde
ma bijan man. akmasin gözyaşlariniz
Uljum paripnaske düşümü bölmeyin
bariljum bugjake bendeki ağirliği alin
puriljum ölürsem
hem nasavgiljum. benden söz etmeyin.
Te muljum
civen pani i lulugjenge
muken i car the bajrol GEBÄRE MICH NICHT
Te muljum Auf jenem Hügel
E grasten muken te prastan mähte der Vater Korn
o cerenja me cirikle te araken Für die Pferde anderer
galbane mace oleske te den in jenem Lager
The muljum
asvin ma muken Kam die Mutter nieder
muken man korkoro während die Sonne auf die Erde brannte
mo suno ma cinaven Hätte ich vor meiner Geburt
Te muljum Nur drei Worte gewusst
mandar kanci ma vakeren hätte ich gesagt
Gebäre mich nicht
BENI DOĞURMA Für’s Leid bin ich geschaffen
Für die Fron grossgezogen
O bilinen tepede arpa biçiyordu babam Altgeworden und verbraucht
başkalarinin atlari için Wenn ich sterbe
doğurmuştu annem Gebt den Blumen Wasser
topraği yakarken güneş lasst das Gras wachsen
Wenn ich sterbe
doğmadan önce lasst die Pferde laufen
iki sözcük bilseydim sadece Die Sterne sollen meine Taube hüten
derdim ki Goldene Fische soll sie bekommen
beni doğurma Wenn ich sterbe
237
Vergießt keine Träne Ako umrem
Last mich allein o meni nemojte ni reč reći
Unterbrecht nicht meinen Traum
Erzählt nich von mir.
DON’T GIVE ME TO BIRTH
Wenn ich sterbe
On this field
NEMOJ ME RAĐATI where the horses were passing
Na onoj njivi my father gathered hay
gde konji prolaze for other people’s horses,
tata mi žito za njih žanje. and my mother was giving birth in a tent
Dok sunce sija while the sun scorched the earth.
a majka mi rađa u toj čergi If I knew just three words
ispod koje zemlja peče Before I was born
I would say

Te tri reči da sam ih samo Don’t give birth to me

prije mog rođenja znao
rekao bih My existence turned
Ne rađaj me into a burden
growing up turned into work
Moja bit postala je breme I got old
moje rastanje postao je rad I got sick.
tako ostarih
i razboleh se When I die
pour water on the flowers
Ako umrem let the grass grow
zalijte cveće vodom When I die
pustite nek trava raste release the horses
Ako umrem let the horses run
konje odvežite may the stars protect my birds
i pustite neka jure may they feed them golden fish
moju pticu zvjezde neka čuvaju When I die
nek joj zlatne ribice poklone shed no tear
Ako umrem leave me alone ( do not disturb me)
nemojte suze liti do not break my dream.
pustite me samog
ne prekidajte mi san
When I die
Do not speak about me.

238
Poems by Hedina Tahirović-Sijerčić
Title: Drabarni/ Gatara/ Fortune-Teller
Language pair/s: Romani (Gurbeti Bosnian dialect)-Bosnian-English

DRABARNI
Dikhav e dzukel, e prno, e chavorro
Ando fildzano me dikhav Gova dzangljol-pe jekhethane, gugloro.
Tuche baxt te vacharav.
GATARA
Na dikh man dukhalo
Naj si sa dzungalo. U fildžan ti gledam
Sreću da ti phendam.
Hi man o choxanipe
Me dikhav e dukhalipe. Ne gledaj me tako tužno
Nije baš sve ružno.
Kate si o mursh
Vov anel e dukhado brsh. Imam čudnu moć
Trebaće ti pomoć.
Na dikh man dukhalo
Naj si sa dzungalo. Vidim muškarca kako stoji
I godinu bolnu ti kroji.
Thov talo fildzano cira love
Ka cherel pala nevo patave. Ne gledaj me tako tužno
Nije baš sve ružno.
Ka peres ande kamlimata
Von ka avel sar ande phandimata. Ispod fildžana malo para stavi
I nova ljubav će da se pojavi.
Thov talo fildzano sumnakuni angurusti
Ka cherel tut abijavehchi luludji. Ti ćeš ga voljeti
A on će ti rob biti.
Dikhav e vordon, e kuna, e chavoro
Kali khanji, aver Rromni thaj murshoro. Ispod fildžana zlatni prsten stavi
Svadbeni cvijet biće ti u glavi.
Hi man o choxanipe
Me dikhav dukhalipe. Vidim kočiju, bešiku i dijete,
Crnu kokoš, drugu ženu i muškarca
Na dikh man dukhalo Moj, lijepi cvijete!
Naj si sa dzungalo.
Imam čudnu moć
Thov talo fildzano sumnakuni merikli Trebaće ti pomoć.
Ka akharel tut Rromani chirikli.
Ne gledaj me tako tužno
Phajrar o naj prdal pe kurva Nije baš sve ružno.
Chichnd e jakha
E gindese del phaka. Ispod fildžana zlatni lanac stavi

239
Romska ptica pomoće ti glavi. And it will work to bring a new honey.

Pritisni prstom preko kurve, You will fall in love

Zavori oči He will be your slave.
I poželi nešto.
Under the cup, put your golden ring
Vidim psa, stopalo, dijete And you will marry him in the spring.
Ovo ti znači: sretno i zajedno, moj cvijete
I see a pram, a cradle, a toy
A crow, another woman, and a boy.
FORTUNE-TELLER
From inside this cup I have some magic
I will tell of your luck. I see something tragic.

Don't look so sad

Don't look at me so sad
Things aren't so bad. It isn't so bad.

I have some magic Put your necklace under the cup

And a Romani bird will protect your luck.
I see something tragic.
Press your fingers on the bitch
There is a guy
He makes you cry. And things will go without a hitch
All will work out as you wish.
Don't look so sad
It isn't so bad. I see a foot, a dog, a boy
Now you'll be reunited in joy.
Under the cup, just put some money

240
Poems by Hedina Tahirović-Sijerčić
Title: CV6/ CV-6/ CV-6
Language pair/s: Bosnian- Romani (Gurbeti Bosnian dialect)-English

CV 6 xarkumache sheja, kazane thaj kotlove.

Phurisardem. Seha man pinda thaj pandz
Ime mi je bilo Mehmed. Rodio sam se i brsh.
živio sam u Bosni. Kucao sam kazane i
kotlove od bakra. Bio sam ostario. Bilo Mulisardem.
mi je pedeset i pet godina.
Amare mangle te praxosaren man, von na
Umro sam. dije. Nane o than pe lengi limori. Ande
lengi kali phuv. Mrno trupo astarda te
Htjeli su da me sahrane a oni su branili. rispisarel. Athoska 15 djive von dije
Nema mjesta na njihovom groblju. U mandje kotor kale phuvjako. Dure e
njihovoj crnoj zemlji. Tijelo mi se počelo cahretar. Pe thaneste kaj khonik nashti te
raspadati. Nakon 15 dana su odobrili rodel man. Pe thaneste kaj knonik nashti
komad crne zemlje. Iz higijenskih te dikhel man.
razloga. Daleko od čerge. Na mjestu gdje
me niko neće naći. Na mjestu gdje mi Mrno trupo raspisarda thaj pharuvda ande
niko neće doći. kali phuv.

Tijelo mi se rasulo i spojilo sa zemljom. Akana akharav Odji. Ujrav pe plavo

delesko duripeste.
Sada se zovem Duša. Letim spektrom
plavih nijansi nebeskog prostranstva. Rodav miro.

Tražim mir. Iklav po nuvera. Paruvav nuvera sar

chindile grasta. Brshind thovel mo muj.
Na oblacima jašem. Mijenjam oblake kao Bahval vahcarel mansa. Devlehchi jag del
umorne konje. Kiša me umiva. Vjetar me mandje zuralipe. Ujrav pe plavo delesko
razgovara. Munja me snagom napaja. duripeste. Paruvav nuvera sar chindile
Letim spektrom plavih nijansi nebeskog grasta. Kham cherel mandje sumnakuno
prostranstva. Mijenjam oblake kao drom koring Indija. Talo nuvera mothovel
umorne konje. Sunce mi gradi zlaćanu pes Indija.
stazu ka Indiji.
Ispod oblaka se nazire Indija. Izdrav. Huljardem ande Gangeski xar.
Grast boldisarada e plave delese.
Drhtim. Sjahao sam u dolinu Ganga. Konj Me boldisardem e plave pajese.
se vratio spektru plavih nijansi neba.
Ja se vratio spektru plavih nijansi vode.
CV-6
My name was Mehmed . I was born and I
CV-6 lived in Bosnia. I knocked cauldrons and
Mo anav sasa Mehmed. Bijandilem thaj copper boilers. I was getting old. I was fifty-
dzivisardem ande Bosna. Cherdem five years.

241
 Now, my name is Soul. I fly on the range
I died. of the blue shades of sky.

They tried to bury me, but they didn’t I Seek my peace.

alowed it. There is no place in their
cemetery. In their black earth. My body I ride on the clouds. I exchange/change
began to crumble/ decompose. After the 15 the clouds as tired horses. Rain washes
days they alowed a piece of black earth. For me. Wind talks to me. Lightning supplies
hygienic reasons. Far away from the tent. In a me a power. I fly on the range of the blue
place where no one will find me. At the place shades of sky. I exchange/change the
where no one will visit me. clouds as tired horses. The sun builds for
me a golden path to India.
My body scattered and merged with the Below the clouds it siluetes India.
ground/earth.
I'm shivering. I dismounted in the valley
of the Ganges. The horse returned to
spectrum of the blue sky.

242
Annex III – LIST OF POETS AND LANGUAGE PAIRS

POET’S NAME
in alphabetical order LANGUAGE PAIR/S
(last name, first name)
Avdić, Šemso Romani-Bosnian
Bajrić, Bajro Romani-Croatian
Berberski, Slobodan Serbian only
Brajdić Šajnović, Rajko Romani-Slovenian
Brezar, Madalina Romani-Slovenian
Briher, Hanci Serbian-Romani
Cana, Kasum Romani-Croatian
Delia, Grigore Romani-Romanian
Demir, Ljatif Mefaileskoro Romani-Macedonian-Croatian
Demirov, Sabri Romani-Macedonian
Demirović, Slavimir Romani-Serbian
Dimić, Trifun Romani-Serbian
Djurić, Rajko Romani-Serbian-German
Đurić, Gordana Romani-Serbian
Familić, Maja Serbian- Romani
Farkaš, Ištvan Romani-Serbian-Hungarian
Haliti, Bajram Romani-Serbian
Horvat, Romeo Romani-Slovenian
Horvat-Muc, Jožek Romani-Slovenian
Ibrahim, Sali Romani-Bulgarian
Ibraimovski, Fari Romani-Macedonian-Croatian
Ilić, Emilija Romani-Serbian
Ilić, Rozalija Romani-Serbian
Ilijaz, Šaban Romani-Serbian
Jovičić, Predrag Romani-Serbian
Kaldaraš, Dragica Romani-Serbian
Kleibencetl, Janko Slovenian-Romani
Kovačič, Jelenka Romani-Slovenian
Krasnići, Alija Romani-Serbian-Albanian
Kyuchukov, Hristo Romani-Bulgarian
Livijen, Jože Romani-Slovenian
Mihai, Luminita Cioaba Romani-Romanian

243
 Mihajlović, Miroslav Romani-Serbian
Neziri, Nedžmedin-Nedžo Romani-Serbian
Nezirović, Slobodan Romani-Slovenian
Nikolić, Jovan Serbian only
Osman, Nedjo Romani-Macedonian-Serbian
Paćaku, Kujtim Romani-Serbian-Albanian
Petrovski, Trajko Romani-Macedonian-Serbian
Ranđelović, Desanka Romani-Serbian
Ranjičić, Gina Romani-Serbian
Rašković, Zoran Serbian only
Saćip, Mehmed-Meho Romani-Serbian
Šainović, Kadrija Romani-Serbian
Šainović-Lika, Kadrija Romani-Serbian
Saiti, Agim Romani-Albanian
Saitović-Lukin, Baja Romani-Serbian
Salijesor, Seljajdin Romani-Serbian
Sejdić, Marko-Aladin Romani only
Sejdić, Rasim Romani-Bosnian
Sejdović, Ruždija-Ruso Romani-Serbian
Serbezovski, Muharem Romani-Macedonian-Bosnian
Šerkezi, Mladenka Romani-Slovenian
Stojko, Steva Serbian-Romani
Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina Bosnian-Romani-English
Tairović, Zoran Romani-Serbian
Usin, Kerim Bulgarian
Vukšinić, Helena Romani-Slovenian

244
Annex IV – ROMANI LITERARY WORKS/ MY CORPUS

Romani literary writing: authors [male and female] from:

Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro,
Serbia, Romania, Slovenia, Turkey.

Summe of publications: 169

Publications by 41 men: 128

Publications by 18 women: 40 but not counted in a total sum 2 unpublished publications by
women: Amela Avdić (BiH) and Izeta Sejdović (Montenegro). In my corpus there are 18 women
writers.
From this sum 1 publication published as a joint publication: women and man in Macedonia.

Albania, Greece and Turkey no known Romani authors.

PUBLICATIONS LISTED BY COUNTRIES

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Author (male) Sejdić, Rasim (1943 -1981)

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina

Genre of text poetry

Publishing information (1978) Publi and Press, Rho:Milano
Source language of text Romani/ Rasim-Poeta-Zingaro
Translations of the text Italian
Emigrated to

Author (male) Avdić, Šemso

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina

245
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1998) Banja Luka: BZK “Preporod”.
Source language of text Bosnian/ Romi od rođenja do smrti
Translations of the text Romani/ doesn’t have title in Romani
Emigrated to Italy, Germany, now in Sweden

Author (male) Avdić, Šemso

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1985) Primalpe – Boves (Cn)
Source language of text Romani/ Poezije
Translations of the text Italian/
Emigrated to Italy, Germany, now in Sweden

Author (male) Avdić, Šemso

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina

Genre of text poetry

Publishing information (1993) Forle: Forum/Quinta
Generazione.
Source language of text Romani/ Ratvarol ilo Romano
Translations of the text Italian/ Sanguina il cuore dei rom
Emigrated to Italy, Germany, now in Sweden

Author (male) Avdić, Šemso

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina

Genre of text poetry

Publishing information (2010) Banja Luka: Dnevne nezavisne
novine
Source language of text Bosnian/ Romska sudbina lancima

246
 okovana
Translations of the text Romani/ doesn’t have title in Romani
Emigrated to Italy, Germany, now in Sweden

Author (male) Sejdić, Marko Aladin

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2000) Milano: I.S.U. Università
Cattolica.
Source language of text Romani/Me avav dural
Translations of the text Italian
Emigrated to Italy, now in Germany

Author (female) Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2007) Toronto: Magoria Books.
Source language of text Romani/Dukh
Translations of the text English/Pain
Emigrated to Germany, Canada, Germany, now in
Bosnia

Author (female) Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text prose: story
Publishing information (2009b) (Rromane Paramicha /
Romani Folktales Series), No. 2, Toronto:
Magoria Books.
Source language of text Romani/ Sar o Devel Cherda e
Rromen.
Translations of the text English/ How God Made the Roma.

247
Emigrated to Germany, Canada, Germany, now in
Bosnia

Author (female) Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text prose: story
Publishing information (2010b) (Rromane Paramicha/Romani
Folktales Series), No. 6, Toronto: Magoria
Books.
Source language of text Romani/ Macho
Translations of the text English/ Fish
Emigrated to Germany, Canada, Germany, now in
Bosnia

Author (female) Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text prose: story
Publishing information (2010c) (Rromane Paramicha/Romani
Folktales Series), No. 4, Toronto: Magoria
Books.
Source language of text Romani/ Karankochi-Kochi
Translations of the text English/ Karankochi-Kochi
Emigrated to Germany, Canada, Germany, now in
Bosnia

Author (female) Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text prose: story
Publishing information (2010d) (Rromane Paramicha/Romani
Folktales Series), No. 5, Toronto: Magoria
Books.

248
Source language of text Romani/Shtar phrala
Translations of the text English/Four brothers
Emigrated to Germany, Canada, Germany, now in
Bosnia

Author (female) Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2010e) Sarajevo: KNS.
Source language of text Bosnian/ Čuj, osjeti bol!
Translations of the text Romani/ Ashun, hachar Dukh!
Emigrated to Germany, Canada, Germany, now in
Bosnia

Author (female) Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text novel
Publishing information (2011b) Toronto: Magoria Books.
Source language of text Bosnian/ Rom ko grom
Translations of the text English/Rom like thunder
Emigrated to Germany, Canada, Germany, now in
Bosnia

Author (female) Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text novel
Publishing information (2012) Sarajevo: KNS.
Source language of text Bosnian/ Rom ko grom
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Germany, Canada, Germany, now in
Bosnia

249
Author (female) Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina
Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text prose: story
Publishing information (2008) Tuzla: Bosanska riječ
Source language of text Bosnian/ Stare romske bajke i priče
Translations of the text Romani/ Romane Paramicha
Emigrated to Germany, Canada, Germany, now in
Bosnia

Author (female) Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2009) Chandigarh: International
Writers Asociation
Source language of text English/ Like water
Translations of the text Romani/ Sar o paj
Emigrated to Germany, Canada, Germany, now in
Bosnia

Author (female) Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text prose: story
Publishing information (2009d) Toronto: Magoria Books.
Source language of text Romani/ Rromane Paramicha.
Translations of the text English/ Stories and Legends of the
Gurbeti Roma, German
Emigrated to Germany, Canada, Germany, now in
Bosnia

Author (female) Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina

250
Genre of text prose: story
Publishing information (2009c) (Rromane Paramicha/Romani
Folktales Series), No. 3, Toronto: Magoria
Books.
Source language of text Romani/ Rromano princo Penga
Translations of the text English/ Romani prince Penga
Emigrated to Germany, Canada, Germany, now in
Bosnia

Author (female) Sijerčić- Tahirović, Hedina

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text prose: story
Publishing information (2009a) (Rromane Paramicha /
Romani Folktales Series), No. 1, Toronto:
Magoria Books.
Source language of text Romani// Jekh Bendjali Familija
Translations of the text English /An Unusual Family
Emigrated to Germany, Canada, Germany, now in
Bosnia

Author (female) Avdić, Amela

Country of origin Bosnia and Herzegovina
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information unpublished work/manuscript
Source language of text Sweden
Translations of the text Romani, Bosnian
Emigrated to Italy, Germany, now in Sweden

BULGARIA

Author (male) Kerim, Usin (1928.-1983.)

251
Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1955) Sofia
Source language of text Bulgarian/ Pesni od katuna
Translations of the text ?
Emigrated to

Author (male) Kerim, Usin (1928.-1983.)

Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1959) Sofia
Source language of text Bulgarian/ Očite gorjat
Translations of the text ?
Emigrated to

Author (male) Kerim, Usin (1928.-1983.)

Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1968) Sofia
Source language of text Bulgarian/ Stohostvorenia
Translations of the text ?
Emigrated to

Author (male) Kerim, Usin (1928.-1983.)

Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1978) Sofia
Source language of text Bulgarian/ Stareeto mi
Translations of the text ?
Emigrated to

252
Author (male) Kerim, Usin (1928.-1983.)
Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1978) Sofia
Source language of text Bulgarian/ Sz bastin glasz
Translations of the text ?
Emigrated to

Author (male) Kerim, Usin (1928.-1983.)

Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1989) Sofia
Source language of text Bulgarian/ Kogato sztrasen patnik sze
zavrastam
Translations of the text ?
Emigrated to

Author (male) Kerim, Usin (1928.-1983.)

Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2003) Sofia
Source language of text Bulgarian/ Lirika
Translations of the text ?
Emigrated to

Author (female) Ibrahim, Sali (Radkova – Ivanova

Snezhana)
Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1993) София: Литературен форум.
Source language of text Bulgarian/ „Космична любов“,
„Гривна за Ева“

253
Translations of the text Romani
Emigrated to

Author (female) Ibrahim, Sali (Radkova – Ivanova

Snezhana)
Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2001) Scorpion
Source language of text Bulgarian/ Короната на битието
Translations of the text Romani
Emigrated to

Author (female) Ibrahim, Sali (Radkova – Ivanova

Snezhana)
Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2002) София: "Елит-Център за
ромска култура-2002"
Source language of text Bulgarian/ "Цигански видения"
Translations of the text Romani/"Романе елпиня"
Emigrated to

Author (female) Ibrahim, Sali (Radkova – Ivanova

Snezhana)
Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text Myths and legends
Publishing information (2004) RIVA Publishing House.
„Elite“ and Foundation „Next page“ to FOO
Bulgaria
Source language of text Romani/Romani mitologia
Translations of the text Latin
Emigrated to

254
Author (female) Ibrahim, Sali (Radkova – Ivanova
Snezhana)
Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text Almanac for Romani culture
Publishing information (2004) RIVA Publishing House. NCH
Elite and NFK (National Fund for Culture).
Source language of text Romani/?
Translations of the text English/ Sand spread by the wind
Emigrated to

Author (male) Kyuchukov, Hristo

Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poems
Publishing information (1997) Sofia: Our Romani world. I
part, Romani poems (ed.)
Source language of text Romani/ Amari Romani Lumja; 1
kotor, romane poeme
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Autor (male) Romanov, Manuš / take it out the

same like Hristo , might be my mistake
Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poems
Publishing information (1997) Sofia: Our Romani world. I
part, Romani poems (ed.)
Source language of text Romani/ Amari Romani Lumja; 1
kotor, romane poeme
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

255
Author (female) Kovačeva, Lili
Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text
Publishing information () Ikaldipe katar i Dimi
Source language of text Romani/ Armanja Baxtaljaripe
Paramigies
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (male) Čaprazov, Vasil

Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1996) Sofia
Source language of text Bulgarian/ Iskam da samne
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (male) Čaprazov, Vasil

Country of origin Bulgaria
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2004) Sofia
Source language of text Romani/ Romani masalja
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

CROATIA

Editor Dinasi, Adaleta

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (including (2012) Zagreb: Romska udruga

256
works that are not yet published) “Romski putevi”
Source language of text Romani/Antologija e rromane
poezijaći
Translations of the text Croatian/ Antologija romske poezije
Emigrated to Croatia

Author Ibraimovski, Fari

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (including (2005) Rijeka: Udruga žena Romkinja
works that are not yet published) “Bolji život”
Source language of text Romani/Đivdipe thaj vrama
Translations of the text Croatian/Život i vrijeme
Emigrated to Croatia

Authors unknown as indivuduals Literarna grupa “Mladi Lovari”

Country of origin Croatia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (including (2006) Zagreb: Udruga izvornih
works that are not yet published) Roma-Lovari
Source language of text Romani/Paramiče homane paramiče
Translations of the text Croatian/Priče romske priče
Emigrated to

Author (male) Cana, Kasum ( 1968 – 2011)

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (including (2003) Zagreb: AGM.
works that are not yet published)
Source language of text Romani/O Roma kedipe gilengo thaj
fotografija okotar Rromano gjivdipe

257
 Translations of the text Croatian/Zbirka pjesama i
fotomonografija iz života Roma
Emigrated to Croatia

Author (male) Bajro Bajrić

Country of origin Bosnia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (including (1999) Zagreb: Udruga Romi za
works that are not yet published) Rome Hrvatske.
Source language of text Croatian/Tamo je sunce
Translations of the text Romani/Odori si o kham
Emigrated to Croatia

KOSOVO

Author (male) Krasnići, Ali

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information Subotica: Izdavačko preduzeće
Rromane pustika – Romske knjige DOO ( no
date of publishing)
Source language of text Romani/ Antologija e Rromane
poezijaći ane Srbija.
Translations of the text Serbian/ Antologija romske poezije u
Srbiji
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Krasnići,Ali

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1989) Priština: Jedinstvo.

258
Source language of text Romani/ Čehrajine sune
Translations of the text Serbian/ Zvezdani snovi
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Krasnići, Ali

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2004) Kragujevac: A. Krasnići.
Source language of text Romani/ Rromani mehlava
Translations of the text Serbian/ Romska mahala
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Krasnići, Ali

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (1981) Priština: Jedinstvo.
Source language of text Romani/ Čergarenđe jaga
Translations of the text Serbocroatian/ Čergarske vatre
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Krasnići, Ali

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (1985) Priština: Rilinđ.
Source language of text Serbian/ Romske pripovetke s Kosova
Translations of the text Romani, Arabian
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Krasnići, Ali

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text prose

259
Publishing information (1986) Priština: Jedinstvo.
Source language of text Romani/ Iripe ano đuvdipe
Translations of the text Serbian/ Povratak u život
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Haliti, Bajram

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2008) Zagreb: Udruga “Romski
putevi”
Source language of text Romani/ Čehrajine sune
Translations of the text Serbian/ Zvezdani snovi
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Haliti, Bajram

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2004) Batajnica: Memorijalni centar
Roma za holocaust studije Srbije i Crne Gore.
Source language of text Romani / Poema katar e Mum Tadž
Mahal
Translations of the text Serbian / Poema o Mum Tadž Mahal
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Saćip, Mehmed

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1984) Priština: Novi svet
Source language of text Romani/Bućarne vasta
Translations of the text Serbian/ Vredne ruke
Emigrated to Serbia

260
Author (male) Saćip, Mehmed
Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1986) Priština: Novi svet
Source language of text Romani/Loli phabaj
Translations of the text Serbian/ Crvena jabuka
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Saćip, Mehmed

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1994) Priština: Novi svet
Source language of text Romani/Sofrako miškuipe
Translations of the text Serbian/ Pomeranje sofre
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Saiti, Agim

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2011) Subotica: Amaro drom-Naš
put.
Source language of text Romani/ Munrri Čehrajin
Translations of the text Serbian, Albanian
Emigrated to Italy

Author (male) Paćaku, Kujtim

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1996) Italia: Amico Rom
Source language of text Romani/ Baxtalo drom/ Felice
Cammino

261
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (male) Paćaku, Kujtim ???

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text Poetry/anthology
Publishing information (1997) Amico Rom: Italia
Source language of text Romani/ Baxtalo drom-Felice
Cammino
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (male) Paćaku, Kujtim

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text Prose/ paramiča
Publishing information (2002) Tirana: Albania
Source language of text Romani/ Purane rromane paramisǎ
Përallat e vjetra rome
Translations of the text Albanian
Emigrated to

Author (male) Paćaku, Kujtim

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2007) Prizren: Rromani baxt.
Source language of text Romani/Sumnakuni Phurt
Translations of the text Albanian, Serbian, English
Emigrated to

Author (male) Paćaku, Kujtim

Country of origin Kosovo

262
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2009) Prizren: Rromani Baxt
Source language of text Romani/Amare mule na merna
Translations of the text Albanian
Emigrated to

Author (male) Paćaku, Kujtim

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2009) Paris: L`armattan
Source language of text Romani/ E Devlesqe Ćirikle (Jevendesqe
Gilǎ)

Translations of the text French/ Les Oiseaux du ciel (Chants

d'hiver)

Emigrated to

Author (male) Paćaku, Kujtim

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text Poetry/anthology
Publishing information (2010) Rilindja-Priśtina
Source language of text Albanian/ Jeta e re-Antologia
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (male) Paćaku, Kujtim

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text Poetry/anthology
Publishing information (2011) Traduki: Beograd
Source language of text Serbian/ Iz Priśtine s ljubavlju
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

263
Author (male) Paćaku, Kujtim
Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text Poetry
Publishing information (2012) Rromani Baxt:Prizren
Source language of text Romani/ Jekh than tal-o kham
Translations of the text Albanian, Serbian, English
Emigrated to

Author (male) Paćaku, Kujtim

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text Poetry
Publishing information (2012) Rromani Baxt:Prizren
Source language of text Romani/ Trujal o jaga-Oko vatri
Translations of the text Albanian – Tahir Hoxha, English
Agim Susuri, Serbian –Fadil Bajraj with the
publisher Litteris:Zagreb
Emigrated to

Author (male) Paćaku, Kujtim

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text Poetry
Publishing information (2012) Kultur: Germany
Source language of text Deutsch/ Albanische Hefte
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (male) Paćaku, Kujtim

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text Poetry
Publishing information (2013) Lvinia Dickinson
Source language of text Italian/ "100 Thousand Poets

264
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

MACEDONIA

Author (male) Demir, Ljatif

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text Poetry/translation of poems by Garcia
Lorka
Publishing information (1996) Skopje: Studentski zbor:
Skopje
Source language of text Macedonian/ Izbrani pesni
Translations of the text Romani/ Mahatma -Alusarde gilja-
Garcia Lorka
Emigrated to

Author (male) Demir, Ljatif

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text Prose
Publishing information (1996) Skopje: Studentski zbor:
Skopje
Source language of text Macedonian/ Dečije priče
Translations of the text Romani
Emigrated to

Author (female) Eminova, Akile

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text prose: novel
Publishing information 1995. Štip: Kulturno-Prosvjetna
Zajednica.
Source language of text Macedonian/ Amaleet

265
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author ˙(female) Eminova, Akile

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text prose: novel
Publishing information 2001. Štip: Venecija.
Source language of text Macedonian/ Tancot na dušata
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author ˙(male) Petrovski, Trajko

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information 2001. Skopje: BIS - Grafik.
Source language of text Macedonian/ Romski narodni pesni
Translations of the text Romani
Emigrated to

Author ˙(male) Petrovski, Trajko

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text prose
Publishing information 2000. Skopje: Romano ilo.
Source language of text Macedonian/ Snježana i sedam
patuljaka. (author: Grim, Jakob.
Translations of the text Romani/I Snežana thaj o efta
patuljakija
Emigrated to

Authors ˙(female and male) Toči, Safije and Demir, Ljatif

Country of origin Macedonia

266
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2006) Skopje: Darhia.
Source language of text Romani/Purane Romane paramisa
Translations of the text Macedonian/Stari romski prikazni
Emigrated to

Authors ˙(female) Demirova, Enise

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2005) Štip: NU Biblioteka “Goce
Delčev”.
Source language of text Romani/ Romano dživdipe
Translations of the text Macedonian/Romskiot život
Emigrated to India

Authors ˙(female ) Toči, Safije

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2005) Skopje: Darhia.
Source language of text Romani/E Almakoro suno
Translations of the text Macedonian/Sonot na Alma
Emigrated to

Author (male) Hadži Rustemi, Ali

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2004) Tetovo
Source language of text Romani/Dži kana tu Roma
Translations of the text Macedonian
Emigrated to

267
Author (male) Ilijaz, Šaban
Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1985) Skopje
Source language of text Romani/Korenjata
Translations of the text Macedonian
Emigrated to

Author (male) Osman, Nedjo

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1999) Istanbul
Source language of text Romani/Patrin
Translations of the text Turkish
Emigrated to Germany

Author (male) Osman, Nedjo

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text drama
Publishing information (2003) Beograd
Source language of text Turkish/ Medea, Hamlet maüina
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Germany

Author (male) Osman, Nedjo

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2006) Weilerswist
Source language of text Romani
Translations of the text German/ Gebäre mich nicht
Emigrated to Germany

268
Author (male) Serbezovski, Muharem
Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1999) Sarajevo: Bosanski kulturni
centar.
Source language of text Serbian/ Putevi vjetrova i Cigana:
poezija
Translations of the text Romani
Emigrated to Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Serbia

Author (male) Sebezovski, Muharem

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (1983) Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša.
Source language of text Serbocroatian/ Šareni dijamanti
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Serbia

Author (male) Sebezovski, Muharem

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (1985) Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša.
Source language of text Serbocroatian/ Cigani “A” kategorije
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Serbia

Author (male) Sebezovski, Muharem

269
Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (2005) Sarajevo: Romano lil
Source language of text Bosnian/ Kur’an
Translations of the text Romani/Kur’ani
Emigrated to Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Serbia

MONTENEGRO

Author (male) Sejdović, Ruždija Ruso

Country of origin Montenegro
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (2011) Podgorica: Centar za očuvanje
i razvoj kulture manjina.
Source language of text Montenegrin/ Eremit
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Germany

Author (male) Sejdović, Ruždija Ruso

Country of origin Montenegro
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1988) Titograd: Sekcija pisaca-
radnika Crne Gore.
Source language of text Montenegrin/ Svjetlost u ponoć
Translations of the text Romani/ E jak an-e jrat
Emigrated to Germany

Author (female) Sejdović, Izeta (1964 – 2000)

Country of origin Montenegro
Genre of text prose

270
Publishing information unpublished work - manuscript
Source language of text Romani/
Translations of the text / Montenegrin - Serbian
Emigrated to Germany

Co -Authors (males) Sejdović, Ruždija Ruso/ Stojko,

Steva/ Sejdić, Aladin/ Briher, Hanci
Country of origin Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Serbia
Genre of text poetry and prose
Publishing information (2008) Köln: Rom e.V. Köln und die
literarischen Gruppe rromano pero
Source language of text Romani/ Kali čirikli
Translations of the text German/ Der schwarze Vogel
Emigrated to Germany

SERBIA

Editor (male) Acković, Dragoljub

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2012) Sarajevo: Sarajevske sveske N
39/40: Separat N 1
Source language of text Languages of former Yugoslavia:
Antologija romske poezije
Translations of the text Romani/doesn’t have title in Romani/
some of poetry is in Romani translation
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Đurić, Rajko

Country of origin Serbia

271
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1969) Beograd
Source language of text Romani/ Rhom rodel o than tal o
kham
Translations of the text Serbian/Rom traži mesto pod suncem
Emigrated to Germany, now in SerbiaS

Author (male) Đurić, Rajko

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1979) Beograd: Narodna knjiga
Slovoljublje.
Source language of text Romani/ Bi kheresko bi limoresko
Translations of the text Romani/Bez doma bez groba
Emigrated to Germany, now in Serbia

Author (male) Đurić, Rajko

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1980) Beograd: Narodna knjiga
Slovoljublje.
Source language of text Serbian/ Prastara reč daleki svet
Translations of the text Romani/Purano svato o dur themestar
Emigrated to Germany, now in Serbia

Author (male) Đurić, Rajko

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text Poetry
Publishing information (1982) Beograd
Source language of text Serbian/ A i U
Translations of the text Romani/A thaj U

272
Emigrated to Germany, now in Serbia

Author (male) Đurić, Rajko

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text Poetry
Publishing information (1984) Leskovac
Source language of text Romani/Jaga
Translations of the text Serbian/Vatre
Emigrated to Germany, now in Serbia

Author (male) Đurić, Rajko

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text Poetry
Publishing information (1985) Beograd
Source language of text Serbian/ Hefestovi učenici
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Germany, now in Serbia

Author (male) Đurić, Rajko

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text Prose
Publishing information (1985) Beograd
Source language of text Serbian/ Ciganske priče
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Germany, now in Serbia

Author (male) Đurić, Rajko

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1989)Hamburg: Helmut Buske
Verlag.

273
Source language of text Romani: doesn’t have title in Romani
Translations of the text German / Zigeunerische
Elegien/Gediche in Romani und Deutch (self-
translation)
Emigrated to Germany, now in Serbia

Author (male) Đurić, Rajko

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text Poetry
Publishing information (1995) Paris
Source language of text Serbian/ Učenici Hefesta
Translations of the text Franch (translation by other then
himself)
Emigrated to Germany, now in Serbia

Author (male) Đurić, Rajko

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text Poetry
Publishing information (1996) Berlin
Source language of text Romani/ Bi kheresko bi limoresko
Translations of the text German (self-translation)
Emigrated to Germany, now in Serbia

Author (male) Đurić, Rajko

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text Poetry
Publishing information (1996) Paris
Source language of text Serbian/ Snovi Isusa Hrista
Translations of the text Franch (translation by other then
himself)
Emigrated to Germany, now in Serbia

274
Author (male) Đurić, Rajko
Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2002) Paris
Source language of text Serbian/ Ja sam Ciganin
Translations of the text Franch (translation by other then
himself)
Emigrated to Germany, now in Serbia

Author (male) Đurić, Rajko

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2008) Vršac: Biblioteka KOV.
Source language of text Serbian/ Duša i pepeo- pesme
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Germany, now in Serbia

Author (male) Nikolić, Jovan

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (2006) Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag,
Romani Library.
Source language of text Serbian/Beli gavran-crno jagnje
Translations of the text German/Weisser Rabe-schwarzes
Lamm
Emigrated to Germany

Author (male) Nikolić, Jovan

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (1981) Vršac: Književna opština.

275
Source language of text Serbian/Gost niotkuda
Translations of the text Romani/ Dosti khatinendar
Emigrated to Germany

Author (male) Nikolić, Jovan

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (2004) Klagenfurt/Celovec
Source language of text Serbian/Soba s točkom
Translations of the text German
Emigrated to Germany

Author (male) Nikolić, Jovan

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (1987) Vršac: Beograd
Source language of text Serbian/Đurđevdan
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Germany

Author (male) Nikolić, Jovan

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (1991) Ivanjica
Source language of text Serbian/Neću da se rodim
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Germany

Authors (males) Nikolić, Jovan/ Sejdović, Ruždija

Ruso
Country of origin Serbia

276
Genre of text drama/theatre
Publishing information (1990) Cologne/ (2002) Éditions
l'Espace d'un instant
Source language of text Romani (1990)/ Kosovoqo karusèli
Translations of the text French (2002)/ Kosovo Mon Amour
Emigrated to Germany, Germany

Author (male) Nikolić, Jovan

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1993) Niš
Source language of text Serbian/Oči pokojnog jagnjeta
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Germany

Author (male) Nikolić, Jovan

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (1996) Beograd
Source language of text Serbian/Telo i okolina
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Germany

Author (male) Dimić, Trifun (1956 -2001)

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (2002) Novi Sad: Romska matica u
Jugoslaviji.Društvo Vojvodine za jezik,
kulturu i književnost Roma.
Source language of text Serbian/Romske narodne pripovetke
Translations of the text Romani

277
Emigrated to

Author (male) Dimić, Trifun (1956 -2001)

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1979) Novi Sad: Srpska čitaonica i
knjižnica Irig.
Source language of text Romani/Kana avasas ando foro
Translations of the text Serbian/ Dolazeći sa
vašara:Antologoija narodne poezije
vojvođanskih Roma
Emigrated to

Author (male) Dimić, Trifun (1956 -2001)

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1986) Novi Sad: Matica srpska.
Source language of text Romani/Ćidimata e Rromane
Djiljendar
Translations of the text Serbian/ Romska narodna poezijaD
Emigrated to

Author (female) Đurić, Gordana (1958-2002)

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1989) Novi Sad: Društvo Vojvodine
za jezik i književnost Roma.
Source language of text Romani/ Dukhadilo ilo
Translations of the text Serbian/ Ranjeno srce
Emigrated to

Author (female) Familić, Maja

278
Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2011) 2. izd. Novi Sad: Udruženje
Roma Veliki rit.
Source language of text Serbian/ Ćup nadanja
Translations of the text Romani/ O Khoro ažućarimasko
Emigrated to

Author (female) Kalderaš, Dragica

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1997) Vršac.
Source language of text Romani/Gilja
Translations of the text Serbian
Emigrated to

Author (female) Kalderaš, Dragica

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2004) Vršac.
Source language of text Serbian/ Halejeva kometa
Translations of the text Romani/ E halejeski kometa
Emigrated to

Author (female) Kalderaš, Dragica

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2005) Vršac
Source language of text Romani/ E ćirešin ande lulugi
Translations of the text Serbian/ Trešnja u cvetu
Emigrated to

279
Author (female) Kalderaš, Dragica
Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2007) Vršac: Sunce-kham.
Source language of text Serbian/Pesme za decu
Translations of the text Romani/ Gelja e bajačenge
Emigrated to

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1950) Zagreb
Source language of text Serbian/Za kišom biće duga
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1952) Novi Sad
Source language of text Serbian/Proleće i oči
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1955) Novi Sad
Source language of text Serbian/Uze
Translations of the text

280
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1959) Beograd
Source language of text Serbian/Nevreme
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1959) Beograd
Source language of text Serbian/Dnevnik rata
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1964) Subotica
Source language of text Serbian/Blag dan
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1968) Cetinje
Source language of text Serbian/Kote

281
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1976) Beograd
Source language of text Serbian/Odlazak brata Jakala
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1977) Subotica
Source language of text Serbian/Kao beskožni jeleni
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1979) Zrenjanin
Source language of text Serbian/Još san sebe da dovrši
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1980) Priština

282
Source language of text Serbian/Kazivanja Roma
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1982) Novi Sad
Source language of text Serbian/Međe
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1983) Zagreb
Source language of text Serbian/Svakodnevnica
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1984) publishing?
Source language of text Serbian/ Vode nečekane
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (male) Berberski, Slobodan (1919. -1989.)

Country of origin Macedonia
Genre of text poetry

283
Publishing information (1986) publishing?
Source language of text Serbian/Dub
Translations of the text
Emigrated to Serbia

Author (female) Ilić, Rozalija /Ilić, Emilija

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2002) Kragujevac
Source language of text Serbian/Iz romske riznice
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (female) Šainović, Kadrija

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1984) Leskovac
Source language of text Serbian/Stigla je Ciganka i čerga
Translations of the text Romani
Emigrated to

Author (female) Aleksandrović, Marija

Country of origin Serbia
Genre of text Poetry/ Romsko epsko-lirske i lirske
pesme-starija i nova beleženja: klasifikacija,
teme, značenja
Publishing information (2012) Zavod za kulturu Vojvodine:
Novi Sad, Srbija
Source language of text Serbian/Bacila sam jabuku u peć
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

284
ROMANIA

Author (female) Mihai – Cioaba, Luminita

Country of origin Romania

Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1994) Sibiu: ed. Neo Drom.
Source language of text Romani/ O angluno la phuveako
Translations of the text Romanian/ Rădăcina Pământului
Emigrated to

Author (female) Mihai – Cioaba, Luminita

Country of origin Romania
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1997) Sibiu: ed. Neo Drom.
Source language of text Romani/ O manuši kai bitinel brišind
Translations of the text Romanian/ Negustorul de ploaie
Emigrated to

Author (female) Mihai – Cioaba, Luminita

Country of origin Romania
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2006) Bucuresti
Source language of text Romani/ Romane asva
Translations of the text Romanian
Emigrated to

Author (male) Daoczi, Jozsef

285
Country of origin Hungary
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1990) Budapest
Source language of text Romanian/ Iste homoru arcan
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (male) Daoczi, Jozsef

Country of origin Romania
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1991) Budapest
Source language of text Romanian/ Csontfeher pengek között
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (male) Daoczi, Jozsef

Country of origin Hungary
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1994) Budapest
Source language of text Romani/ Mashkar le shiba dukhades
Translations of the text ?
Emigrated to

Author (male) Daoczi, Jozsef

Country of origin Romania
Genre of text Poetry/anthology
Publishing information (1995) Budapest
Source language of text Romani/ Romane poetongi antologia
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

286
Co-Author (male) Delia, Grigore
Country of origin Romania
Genre of text Poetry
Publishing information (2000) Bucharest:Aven Amentza.
Source language of text Romanian/ Collection: Tineri poeti
minoritari
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Co-Authors (males) Borcoi, Jupiter / Sarău,

Gheorghe/Pandelică, Nicolae/ Cordovan,
Ionel
Country of origin Romania
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (2012) Botoşani:Arena Cărţii.
Source language of text Romani/ Paramićă thaj phenimata le
rromenqe
Translations of the text Romanian/ Poveşti şi povestiri rrome
Emigrated to

SLOVENIA

Author (male) Horvat, Jožek Muc

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text Prose
Publishing information (1993) Murska Sobota: Romsko
društvo Romani Union.
Source language of text Romani/ Legenda
Translations of the text Slovenian/Krvava voda
Emigrated to

287
Author (male) Horvat, Jožek Muc
Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text Prose/performance
Publishing information (1999) Murska Sobota: Romsko
društvo Romani Union.
Source language of text Romani/ Radfalu paunji
Translations of the text Slovenian/Krvava voda
Emigrated to

Author (male) Horvat, Jožek Muc

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text Prose/performance
Publishing information (2002) Murska Sobota: Zvezda
Romov Slovenije.
Source language of text Romani/ Hegeduva
Translations of the text Slovenian/ Violina
Emigrated to

Author (male) Horvat, Jožek Muc

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2005) Murska Sobota: Zvezda
Romov Slovenije.
Source language of text Romani/ Ciden andi mro aunav
Translations of the text Slovenian/ Plesala zame
Emigrated to

Author (male) Horvat, Jožek Muc

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2006) Murska Sobota: Zvezda

288
 Romov Slovenije.
Source language of text Slovenian/ Ciganga Irina
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (male) Horvat, Jožek Muc

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2006) Murska Sobota: Zvezda
Romov Slovenije.
Source language of text Romani/ Amaro drom
Translations of the text Slovenian/Naša potK
Emigrated to

Author (female) Kovačić, Jelenka

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1999) Novo Mesto
Source language of text Romani/ Domislin pe du mande
Translations of the text Slovenian/Pomisli name
Emigrated to

Author (famales) Brezar, Marina and Vukšinić,

Helena
Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2005) Lokve pri Črnomlju: Kulturno
romsko društvo Vešoro.
Source language of text Romani/ Samo hari bajt
Translations of the text Slovenian/Samo malo sreče
Emigrated to

289
Author (male) Nezirovič, Slobodan
Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text prose/poetry
Publishing information (2008)
Source language of text Romani/ Romane paramiče taj
romane gilja
Translations of the text Slovenian/Romske pravljice in pesmi
Emigrated to

Author (female) Šerkezi, Mladenka

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1996)
Source language of text Slovenian/ Pesem je rojena sola
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (female) Šerkezi, Mladenka

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2007) ?
Source language of text Slovenian/ Po sledeh jutra
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (male) Horvat, Romeo Popo

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2000) Murska Sobota: Romsko
društvo Romska unija.
Source language of text Romani/Poposkore djilja

290
Translations of the text Slovenian/ Popove pesme
Emigrated to

Author (male) Horvat, Romeo Popo

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2007) Murska Sobota: Romsko
društvo Romska unija.
Source language of text Romani/ Marlenakro gurudo maurimo
Translations of the text Slovenian/ Marlenina skrita omara
Emigrated to

Author (male) Horvat, Romeo Popo

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2009) Murska Sobota: Romsko
društvo Romska unija.
Source language of text Romani/ Marlenakro gurudo maurimo
2
Translations of the text Slovenian/ Marlenina skrita omara 2
Emigrated to

Author (female) Brezar, Marina

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2005)
Source language of text Romani/ Samo hari bajt
Translations of the text Slovenian/ Samo malo sreče
Emigrated to

Author (female) Brezar, Madalina

Country of origin Slovenia

291
Genre of text prose
Publishing information (2006)
Source language of text Slovenian/ Belokranjske in romske
bajke
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (male) Brizani, Imer Traja

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry done as songs with notes
Publishing information (2010) Ljubljana: Studio print, 2005-
2010
Source language of text Romani/Ćhavalen gilaven amencar!
Translations of the text Slovenian/ 6 Otroci zapojte za nami!
Emigrated to Slovenia

Author (male) Brizani, Imer Traja

Country of origin Kosovo
Genre of text poetry done as songs with notes
Publishing information (2011) Grosuplje: PARTNER graf
d.o.o. 2005-2011
Source language of text Romani/Ćhavalen gilaven amencar!
Translations of the text Slovenian/ 7 Otroci zapojte za nami!
Emigrated to Slovenia

Author (male) Diricchardi, Rinaldo Muzga

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2011) Ljubljana: Zveza romskih
skupnosti Umbrella-Dežnik in Anglunipe –
RIC

292
Source language of text Slovenian/ no title in Slovenian
Translations of the text Romani/Romane Htaj Sintatikhes
Ghilja
English/ (5 poems translated in
English)
Emigrated to

Author (male) Šajnović, Brajdić Rajko

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1995) Dolenjska Založba:Novo
Mesto
Source language of text Romani/ Drom
Translations of the text Slovenian/Pot
Emigrated to

Author (male) Šajnović, Brajdić Rajko

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2000) Dolenjska Založba:Novo
Mesto
Source language of text Romani /Ovi Rom Romano čhavoro
Translations of the text Slovenian/ Biti Rom romski otrok
Emigrated to

Author (male) Šajnović, Brajdić Rajko

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text Poetry/translation from Slovenian
author Franc Prešern
Publishing information (2006) Založba Karantanija
Source language of text SlovenianPesme i poezija

293
Translations of the text Romani/Djilavani buti djilava/
Emigrated to

Author (male) Livijen, Jože

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (1994) Primorska Založba: Murska
Subota
Source language of text Romani/ Čhoneskri angrusti
Translations of the text Slovenian/Lunin prstan
Emigrated to

Author (male) Livijen, Jože

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2007) Slovenian very known author
Feri Lajinšček: Murska Subota
Source language of text Slovenian/ Podedovane brazgotine-
pesmi o lesi in lovu
Translations of the text
Emigrated to

Author (male) Kleibencetl, Janko

Country of origin Slovenia
Genre of text poetry
Publishing information (2004) Maribor
Source language of text Romani/ Del tuha, romski pozdrav
Translations of the text Slovenian
Emigrated to

294
Annex V – QUESTIONARY FOR AUTHORS

Questions asked to authors:

 Molim te provjeri, ispravi i nadopuni  Please, revise, correct and supplement
svoju biografiju i bibliografiju. your biography and bibliography.
 Izaberi dvije pjesme sa  Choose two poems with their
prijevodom/ima koje želiš da translation/s you wish to be analyzed
analiziram u svom radu. in my work.
 Potpuni podaci o publikaciji: naslov  Please submit full information about
publikacije, autori, prevodioci, publication: title of publication,
izdavačka kuća, godina izdavanja. authors, translators, publishing house,
year of publication.
 Molim napiši potpun text tvoje pjesme  Please write whole text of your poem

sa tekstom prijevoda. along with its translation/s.

 Na kojem romskom dijalektu si  In which Romani dialect did you write

napisao svoju pjesmu/e? your poem/s?

 Na kom jeziku /cima ili /dijalektu/ima  In which language/s/ or dialect/s did

si ih preveo? you translate your poems?

 Koji je motiv tvojih pjesama?  What is the motive of your poems?

 What did you want to say and to tell in
 Šta si želio reći i poručiti u svojim
your poems; what do you want to
pjesmama; na šta ukazati?
point out or emphasize?
 Da li si imao problema kod prijevoda i
 Did you have problems while
koji su to problemi?
translating and what were those
 Da li misliš da pjesme pisane na
problems?
romskom jeziku mogu prevoditi samo
 Do you think that the poems written
Romi i zašto?
in Romani can be translated only by
 Da li misliš da pjesme koje Romi pišu
Roma and why?
na većinskim jezicima mogu samo oni
 Do you think that the poems that
prevesti na romski?
Roma write in majority languages can
 Da li si prevodio nekad pjesme svojih
be translated in Romani only by Roma

295
 kolega Roma na romski ili na neki od themselves?
većinskih jezika? Kakvo je tvoje  Have you ever translated poems
iskustvo po tom pitanju? written by other Roma colleagues in
 Da li si razmišljao da li će i ko će čitati Romani or in a majority language?
tvoje pjesme? What is your experience according to
 Kako su Romi prihvatili tvoju this question?
pjesmu/e a kako ne-Romi?  When you wrote your poems did you
 Da li se vremenom promijenilo tvoje think anybody would read them?
interesovanje pisanja pjesama na  How did Roma accept your poem/s
romskom jeziku i o kojim temama and how did non-Roma?
sada pišeš i zašto?  If with time your interest in writing
the poems in Romani changed, what
thematic are you writing about now
and why?

296
Annex VI – “Decizia Romane čhibaki”

297
298
299
 Decision: "The Rromani alphabet"
Warsaw, 07 of IV 1990
The Commission for the Standardization of the Rromani Language gathered in Warsaw on the
5th and 6th of April 1990 under the patronage of UNESCO and took the following decisions:
1. written Rromani is one language with minor variations, and Rroms read it with flexibility, each
according to the pronunciation of his/her own dialect.
2. the Rromani alphabet is specific and based upon the Latin script with some small modifications and
we are not supposed to use the alphabet of any other language.
3. one grapheme or diacritic may fulfill only one function.
4. in the standard language, there are 5 (five) vowels: a e i o u; some of them are in lexical variations
but this phenomenon does not pertain to phonetics or phonemics.
5. in the standard language there are no centralized vowels; such may be encountered only in texts with
dialectal character. They are then indicated by two dots ¨ (ä as Romanian â [or î], Russian ы, Polish y,
Turkish ı etc.), ë as Romanian ă, Albanian ë, Bulgarian ъ etc..) and ö and ü as in the Germanic
languages [or in Hungarian]).
6. constricted vowels are not accepted in the standard language.
7. there are no diphthongs with [w] in the standard language.
8. preyotisation is indicated by means of the "ćiriklo": ˇ (inflex or caron).
9. there are no other vowels.
10. there is only one l in Rromani language and it has two variants according to its position.
11. one distinguishes between h (laryngeal) and x (velar).
12. dorsal stops g, k and kh are spelled after the ProtoRromani system and everyone reads them
according to his/her own dialect (palatalized or not).
13. aspirated consonants are indicated by means of the grapheme h: ph, th etc...
14. there is a tendency to keep the opposition between two r’s: one simple and one not (pronounced as
retroflex, nasal, etc.) in all the dialects where this opposition does exist. In these dialects it is spelled rr.
15. the principle of postpositions is retained; they indicate the sandhis I, II and III and are characteristic
for neo-Indic languages. Their first graphem (archigraphem) is q, ç and θ (instead of 8, which has been
rejected from standard spelling).
16. the spirants are written c, ć, ćh (or ch), s, ś, z, ź and ʒ (or з).
17. the symbol ⊐ [dz] is rejected since it has no phonemic value.
18. the spirants (affricates) ćh and ʒ (з) are pronounced resp. [ʧh] and [ʤ] in the dialects I and II and
smooth [ɕ] and [ʑ] in the dialect III. The neutral-ization between [ʃ] and [ɕ] and between [ʒ] and [ʑ] is
not accepted in the standard language.
19. the stress is generally final (oxytonic). Where it is not final, its place is indicated by means of the
grave accent (à, è etc.).
20. there are no short and long vowels in opposition. All are medium.
21. when there are two possible constructions (one analytic and the other one synthetic) the synthetic
one is preferred.
————————————————————————
Warsaw (Jadwisin-Serock) 07. IV. 1990 — signed by S. Balić, R. Djurić, G. Demeter, Ś. Jusuf, M.
Heinschink, A. Lewkowicz, I. Danka, R. Gsell, L. Manuś, A. Jòśi, I. Śabàni, S.-K. Thakkar, M. Courthiade, I.
Hancock, A. Daróczi, T. Pobożniak, L. Ćerenkov and V. Koptilov (UNESCO special representative).

300
 BIOGRAPHY

Hedina Sijerčić is a member of the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for
Regional or Minority Languages for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
With Cynthia Levine-Raski she is co-editor and contributing author of the A Romani Women’s
Anthology: Spectrum of the Blue Water (2017). In 2016 she published her book Rodni
identiteti u književnosti romskih autorica na području bivše Jugoslavije/ E genderikane
identitetura andi literatura savi xramosaren e romane autorke andi nekanutni Jugoslavija
[Gender identities in literature of the Romani women authors in the former Yugoslavia]. From
2012-2014 at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Zagreb, Croatia, she was Lecturer
on Romani language, literature, and on the culture of Roma. In 2011/2013, her Romani
Dictionary: Gurbeti-English/English-Gurbeti, and in 2011 her autobiographical novella Rom
like Thunder were published with Magoria Books in Toronto. In 2010, her Romani-Bosnian
and Bosnian-Romani dictionary was published by the Federal Ministry of Education and
Science, Bosnia and Herzegovina. She is author of Romani Folk Tales, and of six children’s
books, poetry collections and many academic papers.

BIOGRAFIJA
Hedina Sijerčić, član je odbora eksperata Vijeća Evrope za Evropsku povelju za
regionalne ili manjinske jezike. Sa Sintijom Levine- Rasky Hedina je ko-urednica i ko-
autorica antologije A Romani Women in Canada: Spectrum of the Blue Water (2017). U
2016. godini objavila je knjigu Rodni identiteti u književnosti romskih autorica na području
bivše Jugoslavije/ E genderikane identitetura andi literatura savi xramosaren e romane
autorke andi nekanutni Jugoslavija pri Federalnom ministarstvu za obrazovanje i nauku u
Mostaru. Od 2012. – 2014. na Filozofskom fakultetu u Zagrebu, Hrvatska, predavala je
romski jezik, književnost i kulturu Roma. 2011/2013 njen Romani Dictionary: Gurbeti-
English/English-Gurbeti, i njena autobiografska novela Rom like Thunder (2011) objavljeni
su od strane Magoria Books u Torontu. 2010. godine njen Romsko-bosanski i bosansko-
romski rječnik objavljen je od strane Federalnog ministarstva za obrazovanje i nauku u
Mostaru, Bosna i Hercegovina. Autorica je romskih narodnih priča i legendi, šest knjiga za
djecu, knjiga poezije i više akademskih radova.

301
Appendix 1

Изјава о ауторству

Име и презиме аутора Хедина Сијерчић _____

Број индекса 16148/D

Изјављујем
да је докторска дисертација под насловом
LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE OF ROMA WITHIN TRANSLATION IN THE
WESTERN BALKANS: POETRY IN SELF-TRANSLATION
(ЈЕЗИК И КЊИЖЕВНОСТ РОМА У ПРЕВОДУ НА ЗАПАДНОМ БАЛКАНУ:
ПОЕЗИЈА У АУТОПРЕВОДУ)

 резултат сопственог истраживачког рада;

 да дисертација у целини ни у деловима није била предложена за стицање друге
дипломе према студијским програмима других високошколских установа;
 да су резултати коректно наведени и
 да нисам кршио/ла ауторска права и користио/ла интелектуалну својину других
лица.

Потпис аутора

У Београду, _________________
_________________________
Appendix 2

Изјава o истоветности штампане и електронске верзије докторског

рада

Име и презиме аутора: Хедина Сијерчић

Број индекса 16148/D
Студијски програм: "JKK - ДAС Модул Култура"
Наслов рада _ LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE OF ROMA WITHIN
TRANSLATION IN THE WESTERN BALKANS: POETRY IN SELF-
TRANSLATION
(ЈЕЗИК И КЊИЖЕВНОСТ РОМА У ПРЕВОДУ НА ЗАПАДНОМ БАЛКАНУ:
ПОЕЗИЈА У АУТОПРЕВОДУ)
________________________________________________________
Ментор: др Мирјана Даничић, доцент

Изјављујем да је штампана верзија мог докторског рада истоветна електронској

верзији коју сам предао/ла ради похрањена у Дигиталном репозиторијуму
Универзитета у Београду.
Дозвољавам да се објаве моји лични подаци везани за добијање академског
назива доктора наука, као што су име и презиме, година и место рођења и датум
одбране рада.
Ови лични подаци могу се објавити на мрежним страницама дигиталне
библиотеке, у електронском каталогу и у публикацијама Универзитета у Београду.

Потпис аутора

У Београду, ________________________

_________________________
Appendix 3

Изјава о коришћењу

Овлашћујем Универзитетску библиотеку „Светозар Марковић“ да у Дигитални

репозиторијум Универзитета у Београду унесе моју докторску дисертацију под
насловом:
LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE OF ROMA WITHIN TRANSLATION IN THE
WESTERN BALKANS: POETRY IN SELF-TRANSLATION
(ЈЕЗИК И КЊИЖЕВНОСТ РОМА У ПРЕВОДУ НА ЗАПАДНОМ БАЛКАНУ: ПОЕЗИЈА У
АУТОПРЕВОДУ)

која је моје ауторско дело.

Дисертацију са свим прилозима предао/ла сам у електронском формату
погодном за трајно архивирање.
Моју докторску дисертацију похрањену у Дигиталном репозиторијуму
Универзитета у Београду и доступну у отвореном приступу могу да користе сви који
поштују одредбе садржане у одабраном типу лиценце Креативне заједнице (Creative
Commons) за коју сам се одлучио/ла.
1. Ауторство (CC BY)
2. Ауторство – некомерцијално (CC BY-NC)
3. Ауторство – некомерцијално – без прерада (CC BY-NC-ND)
4. Ауторство – некомерцијално – делити под истим условима (CC BY-NC-SA)
5. Ауторство – без прерада (CC BY-ND)
6. Ауторство – делити под истим условима (CC BY-SA)
(Молимо да заокружите само једну од шест понуђених лиценци.
Кратак опис лиценци је саставни део ове изјаве).

Потпис аутора

У Београду,

_____________________ ___________________