Richard Sarbu 	CDV 805.90(497.1 Istra)-55 
Timi~oara 
PRESENT-DAY TENDENCIES IN THE MORPHO-SYNTAX 
OF ISTRO-ROMANIAN DIALECT 

As compared to the idiom spoken by the southern Istro-Romanians who people severa! small villages and hamlets in the south of mount Učka, and speak a language subject to constant changes1 , the idiom spoken by the inhabitants of Žejane (Yugos­lavia) has preserved to a higher degree the archaic structures and elements inherited from proto-Romanian. The Istro-Romanians of Žejane have lived compactly to our days (102 house numbers, about 400 speakers)2 , being more isolated from the massi­ve influence, of Croatian (i.e., the literary variant of the Ceacavian dialect), and of­fering us, through their language, a pattern of Romance idiom (of the Romanian ty­pe) that has long opposed, especially phonologically and morpho-syntactically a po­werful alloglotic influence (Croatian, Slovenian, Italian). The restrictive use of Istro-Romanian, especially in the last five decades (since it is hardly an instrument of communication, especially for the young commuters employed in the factories of Rieka, Opatia and the neighbourhood, or for those who, through mixed marriages, moved to other Yugoslavian towns of villages) is a process in full development even nowadays. 
Though bilingual, both old and young Istro-Romanians have a well outlined linguistic awareness, being abe to prove in fact that to speak "a cuvinta po našu, po žejanski" means something totally different from to speak "a cuvinti't po hrvatski". 
The <lata offered by our investigations made in Žejane and Sušnjevica (in March, April and August, 1982), by which we checked, in the light of linguistic and 
1 	Sušnjevica, the place where most of the southern Istro-Romanian speakers live, is situated on an im­portant road (Pazin-Paz-Labin), where, in the past, people used to speak ltalian (Istro-Venetian) a lot, and now speak Croatian. On the other hand, in Žejane, which used to belong, in the past, to the Slovenian administration in Podgrad (Cittanova sul Carso) and to the Slovenian linguistic territory, having been geographically more isolated until the third decade of our century -and less subject to Italian influences, old Istro-Romanian elements have been better preserved. 
2 	The number of Istro-Romanians seems to differ from one author to another, in various statistics pu­bliched along the years, oscillating between 525 (in 1850, Fr. Miklosich), 674 (in 1913, Schiick), apud Sextil Pu$cariu, in collaboration with M. Bartoli, A. Belulovici and A. Byhan, Studii istroromiine, II, Bucure$ti, 1926, p. 42-43; 450-500 (in 1959-1963); cf. August Kovačec, Descrierea istroromiinei actuale, Bucure$ti, 1971, p. 23; and 500 (in 1964), cf. Radu Flora, Slovenačke leksičke posudjenice u istrorumunskom, "Linguistica" XII, Ljubljana, 1971, p. 68. We should notice that, while the number of the southern lstro-Romanians desreased rather rapidly according to the statistics we know (from 2428 in 1850, after Fr. Miklosich, to 800-1000 in 1959-1963, after A. Kovačec), in Žejane, the number of the Istro-Romanians dit not decrease so dramatically in tirne. 
statistical base structures of the idiom spoken in Žejane, has confirmed that the pressure exerted today by the Croatian goes through ali the levels of Istro­Romanian, the morpho-syntactical one included. But this influence manifests itself in different ways, being reflected by numerous borrowings, and also by Istro­Romanian innovations, following some Croatian pattern, and stili remaining acqui­sitions of this idiom, as alloglotic elements, adopted to the Istro-Romanian lingui­stic system. By no means does this influence appear under the form of massive dislo­cations and disintegrations of whole compartiments of the system, through the re­placement of the native linguistic structures by foreign ones, in some rare cases, though, this may happen, especially at the discoursive level of speech, when the bi­lingual Istro-Romanian, out of various reasons, occasionally passes unaweres from one code to another, alternating the linguistic structures3 • 
To illustrate the ease of the transition -in speach -from the Istro-Romanian code to the Croatian one and vice versa, we shall reproduce here two texts belonging to individuals of different generations: 
" ... Ke š-iča-n varh de selište sus ... av ... stara crkva, stara bist;reka, bet ara bi­sr;reca ... e ši d-atunče pac a fakut. Nu štivu dupa kata vr~me av jos verit, oanč av čaoata bis~reka facut, če-i an Mune ... (Sankovic Mate, aged 78, Žejane)." 
One could see here the concurrence of the parallels in Croatian and Istro­Romanian, the groded transition from the Croatian syntagm to the Istro-Romanian one, first of ali through the substitution of the noum (crkva -bisf!reka), and then of the adjective (stara -betara). 
" ... Am trei fečor': doj muški ši o ženska, dojfil' ši-o fil'e. Doi as ansurac'. S­av ansurat. Ur are fil', ur fil'. E anke-i fil'a de meritat (DoriCic Anton, Lu Kljone, aged 55, Žejane)." ~ 
Both our collocutors (but not only they) expressed their desire to be recorded while speaking properly "po žejanski" and, therefore persisted in trying to remem­ber the "forgotten" equivalents in their idiom. 
The "mixed" character of Istro-Romanian and the bilingualism of the Istro­Romanians ha ve drawn the attention of well-known Romanian and foreign linguists 
3 	Thus, some of the informers reproduce "perfectly" older texts, well-fixed in tirne -poems, songs, proverbs and sayings -or speak with ease about their family and their daily work. But when they are requested to take part in a dialogue, built ad-hoc on different subjects (especially, social administrati­ve ones), there occur, in their speech, numerous switches from the Istro-Romanian register to the Croatian one, with which they are equally familiar, so that it is difficult to establich, each tirne, from the beginning, whether these switches are accidental or whether we are dealing with hybrid elements and structures of the contemporary Istro-Romanian system, resulting from an interlinguistic mixture. 
since the l 9th century4. Several reasons have been given either to support the theory according to which the dialect under discussion is gradually losing its consistency until it disappears together with its last speakers5 , or to support the theory regarding the rapid disintegration of Istro-Romanian, through the process of mixing, under the prssure of the contact languages, with cultural and economic (and administrati­ve) prestige, lately under the pressure of Croatian6 , "the second mother langue of the Istro-Romanians", as A. Kovačec remarks (A. Kovačec is the author of the latest monograph of contemporary Istro-Romanian in Žejane). 
Despite the multisecular pressure exerted upon this idiom by Croatian, Slove­nian and ltalian (lstrian Venetian), lstro-Romanian is actively used only in Žejane (3 kilometers away, in Mune, it bas not been spoken for a long tirne); it is used by the villagers, in the family, in the street, in differrent everyday or solemn circum­stances, on the occasion of traditional folk holidays (e.g., the custom of the masks -"Pust" -, when they go to Opatija), etc. Thus, we cannot say that contemporary Istro-Romanian has an exclusively "familial" status (because it does not!). On the contrary, in Žejane, Istro-Romanian is the language oj the village, as A. Kovačec states, in the quoted work (p. 195). 
Considering the specific character of this dialect, its resistance to foreign in­gluences, also noticed by E. Petrovici and P. Neiescu,7 we thought it useful to see if all the borrowings from Croatian penetrate the dialect equally easily and have the same degree of functionality, if all the new acquisitions leave their stamp upon the structure of the idiom to an equal degree, determining its future evolution. 
Like any other idiom functioning in an unrelated linguistic medium, the system of Istro-Romanian presents both areas, more resistent to the alloglotic influence, in wich the elements of the so-called "prestige" languages penetrate with more difficul­ty, and in which the persistency of the lstro-Romanian elements is greater (the pho­nological, morphological and morpho-syntactical systems), and areas in which the alloglotic elements literally invade entire compartments (the vocabulary, but also the sentence word-order suprasegmental elements). 
Tht; persistency of the old Latin elements in Istro-Romanian at the phonologi­cal leve!, fully and repeatedly exemplified, is proved again in more recent investigations8 • The specific phonetic features of this idiom, revealed by Sextil 
4 See in this respect S. P~cariu, Studii istroromone, III; Bucure?ti, 1929. References to the !atest works 
about lstro-Romanian see in Petru Neiescu, Din fonologia dialectului istroroman, in "Studii ,l'i Cerve­
tari Lingvistice" "XXXI (1980), nr. 2, p. 137-148. 
5 Cf. E. Petrovici, Rezisten/a sistemului fonologic la o puternicii influenfa striiina, "Cercetiiri de Ling­
vistica" IX (1964), nr.1, p. 35-39; see also A. Kovačec, op. cit., p.34. 6 I. Coteanu, Cum dispare o !imbil (istroromona), Bucure~ti, 1957. 7 Cf. E. Petrovici, P. Neiescu, Persistenfa insulelor lingvistice, "Cercetari de Lingvisticil" IX (1964), 
nr. 2, p. 187-214. 
8 P. Neiescu, Din fonologia dialectului istroromon: see note 4. 

Pu~cariu in his "Studii... "9 , by his predecessors and followers, are still thoroughly fixed in the speech of the majority of Žejane inhabitants, inquired by us. More or less important modifications can be observed especially in the field of syntactic pho­netics. 
We concentrated on older or more recent morpho-syntactical processes, on the concurrence, in the speech of our collocutors, of structures belonging to the Slavic and the Romanian types, on their frequency in recorded texts of different lengths, on the functionality of the Istro-Romanian morpho-syntactical structures in various situational contexts. In connection with this comportament of contemporary Istro­Romanian; we notice especially the well-preserved forms in the paradigm of the noun, of the pronoun and of the verb. 
What we should mention in connection with the evolution of the idiom is the deep tendency, especially of the young people, to modify their articulatory basis un­der the influence of the Ceacavian Croatian dialect, which had important effects on the proper recepti on of the messages by the research worker, although he masters Romanian and Serbo-Croatian, and is acquainted with Istro-Romanian as well. The (special) articulation of some sounds, especially of some groups of consonants at the boundary of two distinct lexical units, makes many utterances difficult to under­stand. Because of this, mutations appear on the level of syntactic phonetics, with consequences easy to foresee in the evolution of the idiom, which will have to form the object of several future, complex investigations. 
From amoung the morpho-syntactical elements of the idiom that contribute to the persistency of Istro-Romanian, to its preservation as a "linguistic island" in a medium strongly influenced by Croatian, we notice first of all, the well -preserved forms in the paradigm of the noun, the pronuon and the verb. 
The analytical forms of the nouns marked in the Genetive-Dative by lu (mase.) and le (fem.), e.g., lu bovu, le mul'are are widely spread. Synthetic forms can be found only in poetry, sayings and proverbs, where these forms became fixed long ago 10 • E.g., 
Oi l'epure nu žuka I Ke te bate maia ta/ 
Ku spinušu plugului I Preste huka curului. 
(Sankovič Mila, Lu Tonič, aged 47, Žejane) 

One could observe the good preservation of the possesive and demonstrative adjectives and pronuons, of old forms inherited from proto-Romanian, which had a specific evolution in Istro-Romanian, but which became stable depending on per­son, number of possessors and possessed objects, case, gender, exactly like in 
See note 2. 
10 Op. cit., p. 20-25. 

Dacian-Romanian. At the same tirne, ane could note the generalization of the farms without emphatic a (čela). For example, ~ere is a text about photos: 
"časta-i fil'a lu fratele. česta. A česta-j fil'u a lui, pak li s-av učis. Siromaku, de-osemnaist let. Ku avtu-av mlatit an stablo ši učis s-av. Adeco! De osemnaist let Ji s-av učis. !a Ku avto. časta-i ča lu a mel've frate fil'u. Česta-i fil'u a lui. Česta-i un­ukulu lu a lui. Česta-i spomeniku a mel've fil' če ie-n Australie murit. Ačflsta-i Eda. Biserka lu Draghe cand s-ft meritat ... časta-i casa čel've če-i cu calu ... ) 
(Sankovič Katarina, aged 81, Žejane) 
Other constructions that are frequently met are those with the personal pro­noun in the Dative; they underline the idea of appurtenance in contexts about family members, friends, as in the fallowing text about the family photos in the photo album: 
"Česta mi-e Sergio. Časta mi-e amerikanka ši fratele meu mai betar če-i an Trst. časta-i Ilca, sev fil'u, mev nepot ši uicu.„ časta mi-e sora ši omu ... lo ši Ro­bert, le Biserke fil'u, ia, ~unuku. časta mi-e le sora din Toronto fil'u ... "(Turkoviš Draga, aged 56, Žejane). 
As far as the Istro-Romanian verb is concerned, we can notice that the old in­flection is well-preserved, generally, but that among the tenses of the indicative, the most frequently used are the present, the future and the perfect. The farms of the re­strictive conditional occur both in the speech of the adults and in that of the younger generation: 
".„Ke j-a zis ke va fače karle čela profesor čč't knige d-este trei seli št. Kum s-o popalit can a fast a čfl oste ši čft. Ali na-v anka iešit. N-am avzit se Tf ieši ke TfŠ kumpara. !o baš rfš vedf kum s-ar pisf ... " 
(Senkovič Mate, aged 78, Zejane). 
"Reš jo an četate ramare, ma n-am kole mes." 
(Tur kovic Sergio, aged 27, Žejane). 

The conjunctive has farms identical with the indicative ( only the verb aji ("to be") -has distinct farms far the conjunctive, but even these farms are frequently replaced by indicative ones), fallowing, in use, the Croatian pattern with the con­junction neka (more rarely -se): 
"Kui i-e farne, neka-ntreba" (Sankovič Maria, aged 50, Žejane). 
Even nowadays, the forms of the conjunctive with neka occur in parallel with infinitive constructions, which, being old, are thoroughly fixed in Istro-Romanian: "Š-atunč a verit spure" (Sankovič Drago -Brko, aged 38, Žejane). 
"Veric merinda!" (Sankovič Maria, aged 50, Žejane). 
"Akmo morem noi doi bel" (idem.). 
"Ši tudi pac s-a mes aštepta la niva de fažou ši de cumpir. Pac s-a moreit aštepta" (Sankovič Mate, aged 78, Žejane). 
"Fil'i meg an četate živi:" (Diričic Jelka, aged 66, Žejane). 
"Ši moreit-3.m mere an soldatie..."; " ...ke cace se koce la ur mesic nu-i dost za živi ši mire piaže pemintu lucra ke cire an pemint lukra si vera je ai sar ..." (Belulovic Frane, aged 61, Sušnjevica). 
From among the elements that persist the morpho-syntactical system, having a high frequency, both in dialogues and in monologues, one can notice the contracted structures with indefinite pronominal or adverbial value; they are, in fact, predicati­ve, lexicalized formations, of the type: nuškdrle "somebody", (nu + štivu + kdr/e), nuščire ( =nu + štivu + čire) "somebody"; nuškum, nuškot, nuškond ... ; maimodnt'e zi "the day befor yesterday" (the synthesis of the syntagm mat modnt'e zi "the previus day"). 
Also well-preserved are the constructions with cardinal numerals from 1 to 6, and those with ordinal numerals of Romance origin. Even the numerals from 7 to 19, the tens and the hundreds, which are lexical borrowings from Croatian (unlike in Dancian-Romanian, where they are Romanian formations), are used in speech, fol­lowing the old Romanian pattern; for example: 
"Mul'ara lukra-n šula patru ure na dan. Ie moreit lukra sto osemdeset ši do ure ... !o voj av~ u decembru šestnajstog petdeset ši činč. ~a are akmo dvajset let. .. " (Doričic Anton, aged 55, Žejane). 
To illustrate the persistency of the archai_c elements and of the innovations which do not occur under alloglotic influence, but as a result of interna} factors, we shall give, in what follows, two texts in which the old Latin elements and the structu­res of the Romanian type are preponderant: 
"Pure, pure-n fok ke seva stinže. češt'a toc šedu ocol' de špurghet, ma nu va ničur anutru pure. D-atunče cuvintu ke l'-e rače. Nu prenča pure de sus. Aša. De jos nu, ma de sus." (Sankovič Drago -Brko). 
"Uri rumun verit oanča fir ku cal'i. Pac au užejt ziče: Bura domar~ca! Ši Bura sera! Anka d-atunče štiu, io am vezt, more-i deset let. Pak štiu ši pak am antrebaveit kum č-av zis. De "šterne" av zisfontona. Ncii šternea zičem. Fantara k'emam kol<;: afara. Betari au zis fantara. Čel'i č-akasa skopes ka ši la uša -čea-i šternea. E ča če-i afara fakuta din selište, č-3.v betari fakut, čase !Hama fantara po našu" (Sanko­vič Mate). 
On tbe otber band, as we bave already pointed out, Istro-Romanian cbanges its aspect in tbe compartments less resistent to tbe alloglotic pressure. Tbe areas subject to tbe massive Croatian influence bave gradually lost tbeir consistency, tbeir specific cbaracter; certain subsystems or structures of tbe idiom bave developed under tbe influence of a foreign pattern (e.g., aspectual oppositions, predicative constructions witb neuter adjectives and witb adverbs in -o, tbe numerals from 11 to 19, tbe ad­verb, tbe word order witb its multiple morpbological implications, sucb as tbe drop­ping of tbe articulated forms of preposed adjectives, tbe dislocation of tbe auxiliary from tbe verb, elliptical constructions, etc.). 
Tbe vocabulary, especially, is subject to cbanges, and. tbis bas direct effects on morpbo-syntax, because, after all, it is borrowings tbat explain tbe morpbo­syntactical structures of tbe mixed type. 
Tbus, as l. Coteanu10 says, in tbe Istro-Romanian basic word stock, from tbe point of view of tbeir origin, over 30-35 per cent of tbe terms are Croatian or Slo­venian; tbe figure R. Flora11 gives, on tbe basis of a study made ona sborter text is 50 per cent. A. Kovačec, on tbe basis of bis statistical glossary of 85,000 lstro­Romanian words, considers tbat Latin terms belong to tbe basic word stock, and Slavic (Croatian) words belong to tbe rest of tbe vocabulary; be states tbat Slavic verbs are almost tbree times more numerous tban Romance verbs, but, in contexts, tbe situation is reversed: Slavic verbs bave a lower frequency, as compared to tbe old Romanian verbs12 • 
As a result of tbe Istro-Romanians pluri-linguism, in morpbo-syntax innova­tions are more numerous tban tbe arcbaisms. Tbus, baving taken over tbe Croatian aspectual oppositions, tbe verb, wbicb is tbe part of speecb witb tbe greatest functio­nal yield in a complex sentence, bas botb bybrid structures witb Istro-Romanian functional root and indicator (suffix) and witb Croatian aspectual indicator (prefix)13 , as well as complete Slavic structures, in wbicb only tbe infinitive indicator is of tbe Romanian type14 : Cf. lega -razlega, pliinže -zapliinže, durmi -zadur­mi, učide -zaučide, jura -pofura, etc., respectively, kopfi -skop~j, reži ­obreži, leti -doleti, etc.1s 
Tbe transfer of Slavic aspectual indicators, togetber witb tbeir functions, in lstro-Romanian sbows tbe ease witb wbicb present-day speakers can switcb from 
11 Op. cit., p. 72. 
12 Op. cit., p. 202. 
14 Cf. similar situations in the Banat subdialect: fntoarce-proiintoarce, veni -proveri, turna -dotur­na, prost/ -doprostf, etc. 14 Like in the Romanian idiom spoken in the valley of the river Timok, in the Negotin area: prekini, prozavi, pakui, razumeni, počni (io nu počnesc). 15 Cf. T.P. Klepnikova, Funkcii slavjanskich glagol'nych pristavok v istrorumynskom, in "Voprosy slavjanskogo jazykoznanija", vyp. 4, Moskva, 1959, p. 34-72. 
one language to the other, the general and aetive eharaeter of the bilingualism of lstro-Romanians1s. 
As far as the two direetions followed by the Istro-Romanian verb are eoneerned (in the marking of predicativity with aspeetual forms), we ean notice a tendeney to avoid the hybrid suppletive opposition and to fully aeeept the Croatian aspeetual opposition (especially, in the speeeh of the young people, who use, e.g., er. predi ­spredi instead of istr .-r. torče -potorče17 , like in the idiom spoken in the Timok area). There are well preserved hybrid forms in whieh the Croatian word that should have reeplaeed the Romanian one, has a more redueed phonetieal body18 • In the ab­senee of formations like *pi, *ori, we meet well-fixed suppletive oppositions, of the following type be -popi, ara -zori. 
The eases in which the aspeetual op_position is not expressed morphematically, it being understood only eontextually, are also frequent: vegl'd, akacd, spure, trdže, ziče, muri, avzi, ete. 
Another area deeply influeneed by the Croatian language is word order. Word order in Croatian is relatively fixed, beeause syntaetieal funetions are generally ex­pressed morphematically, and Istro-Romanians often use this free word order even where the syntaetical funetions should be expressed by word order. One of the ef­feets of this free word order is the disloeation of the auxiliary from the verb ( ef. er. sam ga/jo videla), e.g.: 
Kum iim io kuvintiit, iiv ši ie, Leka Moriiriu ši mul'iira." (Sankovič Anton, aged 82, Žejane) "An karka ku brenta am iipa purtiit. Ku karkoiita." (Senkovič Mila, aged 47, Žejane) "Mare voi io učide ... uiistaz am vo učis. Io-l akmo učide..." (Sankovič Drago 
-	Barko). "...Kand iim de mic fost ... " (idem.) 
"Nu štivu <lupa kata vreme av jos verit" (Sankovič Mate, aged 78, Žejane) 
"Pak s-iiv ku traktom učis." (Sankovič Katarina, aged 81, Žejane) 
It is trne that we should not always look for the eause of these deviations from word order exslusively in the imitation of the Croatian pattern of speeeh, but -as 
A. Kovačee19 points out-also in the need ofthe Istro-Romanians to express syntaeti­eal relations morphologically and to aehieve a logieal rather than grammatieal eon­neetion between the parts of the sentenee. 
16 	About the bilingualism of the Istre-Romanians, see A. Kovačec, op. cit., p. 124. See, also, R. Flora, Ci'teva observafii cu pri vire la bilingvismul manifesta/ in graiurile istroromonilor, in "Actele celui de­al XII-lea Congres international de lingisticii ~i filologie romanica", II, Bucure~ti, 1971, p. 1009-1022. 
17 Cf. A. Kovačec, op. cit„ p. 127. 
18 !dem, ibidem. 
19 Op. cit., p. 178. 

One should also mention the frequent use of elliptical forms by Istro­Romanians and by Croatians, e.g.: "Kum am io kuvintat, dv ši fe"; "Deset dm ši više (am durmit ši više vr~me)". 
The use of the neuter forms of adjectives and adverbs, following the Croatian pattern in -o in predicative constructions is generalized: !ako buro!, but, also, more rarely: Bura fost! (Sankovic Maria) 
Cf. also: Če-i de novo? Ai tdmno. Aifino. Ke lor l'-e &fino... Ie opasno, pote omu muri. Fina f~tina, e lung1'o se porta (M. Sankovic) 
_ More rarely, in the older people's speech one comes across forms like: Ai bire. A, ča nu-i bire. (M. Sankovic). Cf. rom. E bine. Nu-i bine. 
Another field in which Croatian forms have imposed themselves is the Vocati­ve, especially in the case of borrowings: Kume! Sinko! (but, as well as with other words, like: Fetice!). 
"F~to, f~to, f1ttice, /Namažec to ušice!/ Ke-c va veri frQflieru /Rožice la droakulu~!" (Maria and Draga Turkovi<: ­Žejane). • Cf. also: "Ce tu planzi musat~ f~t~?" (Belulovic Frane, Frane lu Fabro, Sušnje­vica, aged 61). 
Concluding, we must say that the pressure exerted by a linguistic system upon another, with which it is in contact, manifests itself more or less intensely, depen­ding on the resistent or fragile character of the areas where the pressure is exerted, 
(a) 
either asa transfer of entire structures and elements, in their original form, una­dapted to the system of the contact language; 

(b) 
or as a transfer of partial structures and elements. 


In this latter case, we may distinguish, between different types of linguistic translation loans (full and half), and hybrid morphological and morpho-syntactical structures, which, in turn, may be of two types, depending on the direction in which the intersystemic pressure takes place and on the character of the systemic forms which impose themselves in present-day innovations, depending on the pattern (in­ternal or external) followed by these hybrid constructions. 
Undoubtedly, all hybrid structures are an expression of the instability of some subsystems, belonging to idioms placed in a medium of powerful outside influence. But not all hybrid structures reflect, to the same extent, the state which foretells the further evolution of that idiom, in its various compartments, others are preserved unchanged for a long tirne, being frequently used by the speakers. Thus, they certify the importancw of the areas in which they occur, the stability and solidity of the re­spective subsystems, and -finally -the resistence of the idiom to outside influen­ces, the preservation of its identity through "active resistence" to massive disloca­tions and maintenance of its specific peculiarities to the disappearance of its last spe­akers. The latter facts anticipate, in some way or other, the future of the idiom which is subject to the pressure of one foreign language, sometimes the influence of three languages, as is the case with lstro-Romanian. The preservation -in tirne ­of this type of structures -for example -is eloquent from this point of view, as well as the relatively small difference between the Istro-Romanian morpho­syntactical structures present in the texts recorded more than 130 years ago, aud pu­blished by Pietro Kandler in the magazine "Istria" starting with 1846, and those con­tained in the texts recently recorded20 • 
In other words, we would like to state that, in order to see the directions in the evolution of contemporary Istro-Romanian, it is necessary that, besides the inter­pretation of borrowings and of various types of linguistic translation loans, one should establish, on the basis of materials offered by more recent investigations: (a) the domains of the idiom and the modelities in which its persistent and its non­persistent features manifest themselves; (b) the degree of vitality of the hybrid mor­phological and morpho-syntactical structures. 
Starting from these theoretical considerations, admitted as a premise in the pro­cessing stage of recorded data, we have come to the conclusion that, in contempora­ry Istro-Romanian, the following types of morpho-syntactical structures are obvio­us in the current speech Istro-Romanians: 
1 a) Non-hybrid elements or structures of the Slavic type (Croatian, Slovenian) that function as autonomous units in a medium of the Romanian type, for example: 
-constructions with pronoun saki "each", "anybody", nešto "something", tako nešto and with adverbs (iako "very"; po romunski, po željanski, skupa -poje­dinačko, čuda -o miirva, više nikad, gotovo je), with prepositions (po, za, etc.) and conjunctions (neka, nego, ali, etc.); 
-constructions with adjectives, especially in predicative constructions (neki je razlika;jako-i bolan; je nepokretna, nego bolna jako; but also upala pl'ut'a "pneu­monia", čuda -o miirva vrt:me "a long tirne -a short tirne"); 
-constructions with numerals from eight upwards (akmo nazad dvajset let); 
-constructions with adverbial nominal modifiers (za vr~me rata); 
20 See our work Texte istoromane $i glosar (Cu un studiu introductiv "lstroromana -azi"), Timi~oara, 1987, Tipografia Universita!ii din Timi~oara. 
adversative -comparative constructions (ne samo jo, nego više /'udi)21 ; 
phrases with the Vocative (Ai /'udi, lsuse!; Kume!) etc. 
I b) Autonomous morpho-syntactical structures of the Romanian type (inclu­
ding the Slavic elements in the older strata, also existent in Daco-Romanian); (see 
the examples above). 
II. Hybrid morpho-syntactical structures of type A and B22: 
II. A) Morpho-syntactical structures of type A are stable and resistant Istro­Romanian structures, in which the Slavic element is adapted, subordinated to the Istro-Romanian system and always functions depending ona certain structure oran Istro-Romanian micro-context, in one and the same unimportant position. 
In this case we distinguish two situations, depending on the structure of these formations or contructions: 
(1) Firstly, there are the cases in which the lexematic theme is Slavic (Croatian, Slovenian), while the grammatical formant (the inflexion, the article) is of the Ro­manian type; e.g., the inflexion of the verbs of Slavic origin (i.o obečes, tu obečeš, je obeče, no[ obečim, voj obečic, jel' obečes "to promise"), the situation is the same in the case of the Romanian verbs of Slavic origin in the Dacian-Romanian (eu sadesc, tu sadeyti, el sade~te ...), spoken today in Romania or in other areas, for example, in Yugoslavia (in Negotin -Tim o k area: jo pakuiesc, to pakuiešč ... "to pack"; jo ra­zume nese, tu razumenešč, noj razumenim "to understand"; s-o prekinit veza "the connection wascut"; mii sikiresc "I'll get angry"; ne-am priziivit "we announced ourselves", following the general pattern, productive on the Romanian territory, in which the flexion forming elements play the main role. 
21 	Although they have the word omir "people", the speakers prefer sl. /'udi, it being more convenient for them to incorporate, in this Croatian phrase, a Slavic constituent of the construciton is manifest. This phenomenon of induction of the terms with the same origin, within more developed syntagms appears frequently in the speech of Istro-Romanians, being fully justified from a psycholinguistic point of view. Thus, when the Croatian autonomous constructions have a wider frequency in a text, we think that we are not dealing with a case of interlinguistic mixture at the syntactical leve!, but rat­her with a conscious or unconscious abandonment of the idiom in favour of the official language, out of different reasons (e.g., the spreakers' intention tci be better understood by the research worker, their mood in certain situations, etc.). 
22 	The terminology used in this study on the Typology of morpho-syntactical structures, has a conven­tional character. It is used out of methodological reasons, and it helped us to formula te severa! perti­nent findings about the recorded texts, concerning the functionality of some formations and syntacti­cal constructions in which the Slavic element is obvious and productive, but which, esentially, remain older or more recent innovations of Istro-Romanian, unlike the constructions which the speakers use accidentally while being inquired, when, in order to be more persuasive, they shift from one code to the other. 
Another example of such hybrid structures with a greater degree of vitality in the lstro-Romanian system is the articulation of the nouns and adjectives with the definite article (siromaku, selištea, ženskile, muškile, volitvele, sakile, divile, svetile, srednile, drobnile /kumpir/, !!unuku, etc.). 
(2) Secondly, there are frequent situations in which, at the level of compound sentences, the building material is Slavic, but the modality in which it functions in a context, its use in the speech of Istro-Romanians is imposed by their linguistic sy­stem. Por example: 
"Oko de sedamdeset let va ave je; Stopedeset metri -zračna linija; pol de ure; varhu de se/ii)te. Čestec? Odnčživic? Obečes, pak nu plates. Sdkile-1 pote zaučide. Akmo-s vo/itvele." ("He' she'll be 70. One hundred and 50 meters -in a straight li­ne; half an hour; the peak of the village; Who are you? Are you living here?; 1 pro­mise, but I won't pay. Anybody could kill it. The elections are taking place now"). 
II. B) Hybrid structures oftype Bare lstro-Romanian structures with a low de­gree of resistence, in which the Slavic element plays an important part, although it does not function as a Slavic autonomous element (like in type I a) in a context. Even if it partially adapts itself to the Istro-Romanian system, the Slavic element exerts an active pressure upon it, making the Istro-Romanian linguistic units func­tion following the respective Slavic patterns. There are two situations in this case as well: 
(1) 
When the root (sometimes the lexematic theme) is Istro-Romanian, but the grammatical forming elements are Slavic: cf. the aspectual prefixation system (torče -potorče, lega -razlega, latra -zalatra, učide -zaučide, manka -namanka, durmi -zadurmi, etc.); neuter adjectives in -o, used to render predicativity (Aifi­no; fti tamno; aj buro), vocative forms (Ff;to, fr;to, f([tice!; Sinko!). 

(2) 
When the building material is Istro-Romanian, but the modalities in which it functions in the sentence are Slavic (the use of neuter forms of the adjectives to mark predicativity; of ellipsis, of free word order, i.e., the dislocation of the auxilia­ry from the verb, of some case forms, of some constructions with multiple parts, af­ter the Croatian pattern, etc.) Por example, Više če-i mai buro (cf. istr.r. bur) ča nu-i fino. če-i de novo? (cf. istr.r. nou);


A ~ 
An Dunai a lu Franc Iozef am fost. Am, Am. 
A ma la voi de moant'e fost. Odnče n-ua. 
lo-1 voi ak~o učide. N-dv anka iešit. Am apa purtat. Vandut-am-vo . 
... bilo familie, bilo družstvo, bilo če ... ; 
... bilo de pena, bilo de če ... 
Here are some general conclusions on the evolution of contemporary lstro­Romanian, in its main compartments: 
1. 
Hybrid constructions (II B) seem to be well-fixed, asa result of the resistance to foreign influences of the dialect, in those areas where the speakers did not accept globa! borrowings, but only the foreign pattern. In such construction, the borro­wing of the foreign elements was made gradually, in its more stable compartments Istro-Romanian, has subordinated its acquisitions from Croatian or Slovenian to its own morpho-syntactical system, has restructured them in it. 

2. 
Statistically speaking, in a corpus of 3000 words, the terms of Croatian of Slovenian origin, are almost 1/3 out of the total vocabulary, and the words of Latin origin represent 2/3. Out of the to tal of 325 complex and compound sentences in the recorded text, the autonomous morpho-syntactical structures of the Slavic type (! a) represent 9.5 per cent, those of the Romanian type (! b) represent 27.5 per cent and the hybrid structures (II A) represent 38 per cent, as compared to type IIB, where they represent only 25 per cent. 


The ratio between the different types of morpho-syntactic structures differs, in smaller parts of the text, depending on the thematic field tackled. The number of structures belonging to type I a and of the hybrid structures of type !/ B increases in the texts dealing with the activities of various administrative and social institutions having Croatian legislation. 
3. The following functional aspects are significant for the evaluation of evoluti­ve directions of contemporary lstro-Romanian: 
-the relatively frequent use of the autonomous Croatian constructions and of the hybrid constructions of type II B (especially by the young people and less so by the adults), in texts where the social administrative aspects are central, and the less frequent use of these structures in texts about the life of the village and the everyday activities of the Istro-Romanians; 
-the preservation (with a high frequency) of the Istro-Romanian autono­mous morpho-syntactic structures of type I b and of the hybrid structures of type !/ A, which means that Istro-Romanian will not disintegrate rapidly under the pressu­re of the Croatian system, but will keep being used actively as a local idiom, as long as its speakers live. 
4. The partial taking over of foreign elements in hybrid structures (e.g., in aspectual oppositions) has been done gradually. Unlike the structures of type !/B, type II A structures reflect the degree of resistance of the Istro-Romanian grammati­cal system, the fact that the lstro-Romanian elements impose their Romance charac­ter upon the hybrid structures, ordering the Slavic material a manner that has been preserved over the centuries. 
The full taking over of some Slavic constructions, a phonomenon often en­countuend in the speech of the Istro-Romanians (of Žejane and Sušnjevica inhabi­tants), is nota weakness of the system of their dialect, but rather their acceptance, as bilingual speakers, of globa! borrowings, in their original form, out of social­administrative reasons. The weakness of the system, in the areas that are more sus­ceptible of linguistic disintegration, is illustrated especially by the hybrid structures of type II B, in which the limited degree of vitality of the old Istro-Romanian ele­ment is evident. 
5. Interpreting the entire recorded material, in its most essential points, and re­ducing the facts of language to types, we come to the final conclusion that the lin­guistic pressure exerted on contemporary Istro-Romanian affects its morpho­syntactical system, first of all, through the mutations which it producesin the voca­bulary and to the extent to which these lexical modifications become absolutely ne­cessary to the respective linguistic community, in its various spheres of communica­tion. 
Resumat 
TENDINTE ACTUALE IN MORFOSINTAXA DIALECTULUI ISTROROMAN 
in lucrare se lncearca o prezentare sistematicll a modului In care se produce astlizi concurenta struc­turilor morfosintactice de tip slav (croat/sloven) ~i a celor de tip romanesc. Se remarca frecventa acestor structuri in texte de diferite marimi ~i functionalitatea lor In diverse conexte de situatie. 
Se disting, In acest sens, patru ti puri principale de structuri morfosintactice, curent utilizate de vorbi­torii istroromani, In care ponderea ~i stabilitatea o are fie (!)elementu! de tip slav adaptat (a) integral sau 
(b) par(ial sistemului lingvistic istroroman, fie (2) elementu! de tip romanesc cu o functionalitate (a) auto­noma in plan sintagmatic sau (b) dependentil de modelu! slav. 
Rezistenta idiomului la presiunea aloglota'. masiva se reflectii tocmai in combinatiile lexico-sintactice mixte, care ilustreaza tendinta de pltstrare a identitatii istroromanei prin 'impotr_ivire activa' la dislocari masive de ordin sistemic ~i mentinerea particularitlitilor sale specifice pina la disparitia ultimilor vorbitori. 
Elocvent in acest sens este rezultatu! analizei unui e~antion de 325 de fraze dintr-un text inregistrat: sintagmele constituite prin alil.turarea elementelor de tip romanic ~i a celor de tip slav reprezinta 38% din totalul constructiilor delimitate, cele constituite exclusiv din termeni vechi romane~ti -27%, iar cele for­mate numai din termeni slav-9,5%, restul de 25% fiind constructii sintactice, In care elementele consti­tutive vechi romane~ti sint structurate morfosintactic dupa model slav (croat/sloven).