romani gypsy india language romany rromani

Disimilatie

2011-10-11T00:30:00.000-07:00

http://dexonline.ro/definitie/disimila%C8%9Bie
Despre noi
Implică-te
Resurse

Anonim

Căutare avansată
6 definiții pentru «disimilație» ▷ declinări

DISIMILÁȚIE, disimilații, s. f. (Fon.) Modificare sau dispariție a unui sunet dintr-un cuvânt sub influența altui sunet, identic sau asemănător (din acel cuvânt); disimilare. – Din fr. dissimilation.
Sursa: DEX '98 | Adăugată de LauraGellner | Greșeală de tipar | Permalink

DISIMILÁȚIE ~i f. lingv. Fenomen fonetic care constă în modificarea sau omisiunea unui sunet dintr-un cuvânt sub acțiunea altui sunet asemănător sau identic (din același cuvânt). [Art. disimilația; G.-D. disimilației; Sil. -ți-e] /Sursa: NODEX | Adăugată de siveco | Greșeală de tipar | Permalink

DISIMILÁȚIE s.f. Modificare sau dispariție a unui sunet dintr-un cuvânt sub influența unui alt sunet identic sau asemănător din același cuvânt. [Gen. -iei, var. disimilațiune s.f. / cf. fr. dissimilation].
Sursa: DN | Adăugată de LauraGellner | Greșeală de tipar | Permalink

DISIMILÁȚIE s. f. modificare ori dispariție a unui sunet dintr-un cuvânt sub influența unui alt sunet identic sau asemănător din același cuvânt. (< fr. dissimilation)
Sursa: MDN | Adăugată de raduborza | Greșeală de tipar | Permalink

DISIMILÁȚIE s. v. disimilare.
Sursa: Sinonime | Adăugată de siveco | Greșeală de tipar | Permalink

disimiláție s. f. (sil. -ți-e), art. disimiláția (sil. -ți-a), g.-d. art. disimiláției; pl. disimiláții, art. disimiláțiile (sil. -ți-i-)
Sursa: Ortografic | Adăugată de siveco | Greșeală de tipar | Permalink
Copyright (C) 2004-2011 DEX online (http://dexonline.ro) • Informații despre licență
Trafic.ro - clasamente si statistici pentru site-urile romanesti

http://www.ielanguages.com/linguist.html

2011-10-11T00:08:00.001-07:00

French
France
Languages
Linguistics
Realia
Blog
Podcast
Travel
About
Contact
Store

English Grammar
History of English
Bibliography

Linguistics 101: An Introduction to the Study of Language

(Source: An Introduction to Language by Victoria Fromkin and Robert Rodman, 6th Ed.)

Part One: Introduction to Linguistics

Every human knows at least one language, spoken or signed. Linguistics is the science of language, including the sounds, words, and grammar rules. Words in languages are finite, but sentences are not. It is this creative aspect of human language that sets it apart from animal languages, which are essentially responses to stimuli.

The rules of a language, also called grammar, are learned as one acquires a language. These rules include phonology, the sound system, morphology, the structure of words, syntax, the combination of words into sentences, semantics, the ways in which sounds and meanings are related, and the lexicon, or mental dictionary of words. When you know a language, you know words in that language, i.e. sound units that are related to specific meanings. However, the sounds and meanings of words are arbitrary. For the most part, there is no relationship between the way a word is pronounced (or signed) and its meaning.

Knowing a language encompasses this entire system, but this knowledge (called competence) is different from behavior (called performance.) You may know a language, but you may also choose to not speak it. Although you are not speaking the language, you still have the knowledge of it. However, if you don't know a language, you cannot speak it at all.

There are two types of grammars: descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive grammars represent the unconscious knowledge of a language. English speakers, for example, know that "me likes apples" is incorrect and "I like apples" is correct, although the speaker may not be able to explain why. Descriptive grammars do not teach the rules of a language, but rather describe rules that are already known. In contrast, prescriptive grammars dictate what a speaker's grammar should be and they include teaching grammars, which are written to help teach a foreign language.

There are about 5,000 languages in the world right now (give or take a few thousand), and linguists have discovered that these languages are more alike than different from each other. There are universal concepts and properties that are shared by all languages, and these principles are contained in the Universal Grammar, which forms the basis of all possible human languages.

Part Two: Morphology and Syntax

Morphemes are the minimal units of words that have a meaning and cannot be subdivided further. There are two main types: free and bound. Free morphemes can occur alone and bound morphemes must occur with another morpheme. An example of a free morpheme is "bad", and an example of a bound morpheme is "ly." It is bound because although it has meaning, it cannot stand alone. It must be attached to another morpheme to produce a word.

Free morpheme: bad
Bound morpheme: ly
Word: badly

When we talk about words, there are two groups: lexical (or content) and function (or grammatical) words. Lexical words are called open class words and include nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. New words can regularly be added to this group. Function words, or closed class words, are conjunctions, prepositions, articles and pronouns; and new words cannot be (or are very rarely) added to this class.

Affixes are often the bound morpheme. This group includes prefixes, suffixes, infixes, and circumfixes. Prefixes are added to the beginning of another morpheme, suffixes are added to the end, infixes are inserted into other morphemes, and circumfixes are attached to another morpheme at the beginning and end. Following are examples of each of these:

Prefix: re- added to do produces redo
Suffix: -or added to edit produces editor
Infix: -um- added to fikas (strong) produces fumikas (to be strong) in Bontoc
Circumfix: ge- and -t to lieb (love) produces geliebt (loved) in German

There are two categories of affixes: derivational and inflectional. The main difference between the two is that derivational affixes are added to morphemes to form new words that may or may not be the same part of speech and inflectional affixes are added to the end of an existing word for purely grammatical reasons. In English there are only eight total inflectional affixes:
-s 3rd person singular present she waits
-ed past tense she waited
-ing progressive she's eating
-en past participle she has eaten
-s plural three apples
-'s possessive Lori's son
-er comparative you are taller
-est superlative you are the shortest

The other type of bound morphemes are called bound roots. These are morphemes (and not affixes) that must be attached to another morpheme and do not have a meaning of their own. Some examples are ceive in perceive and mit in submit.

English Morphemes

Free
Open Class
Closed Class
Bound
Affix
Derivational
Inflectional
Root

There are six ways to form new words. Compounds are a combination of words, acronyms are derived from the initials of words, back-formations are created from removing what is mistakenly considered to be an affix, abbreviations or clippings are shortening longer words, eponyms are created from proper nouns (names), and blending is combining parts of words into one.

Compound: doghouse
Acronym: NBA (National Basketball Association) or scuba (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus)
Back-formation: edit from editor
Abbreviation: phone from telephone
Eponym: sandwich from Earl of Sandwich
Blending: smog from smoke and fog

Grammar is learned unconsciously at a young age. Ask any five year old, and he will tell you that "I eat" and "you eat," but his "dog eats." But a human's syntactical knowledge goes farther than what is grammatical and what is not. It also accounts for ambiguity, in which a sentence could have two meanings, and enables us to determine grammatical relationships such as subject and direct object. Although we may not consciously be able to define the terms, we unconsciously know how to use them in sentences.

Syntax, of course, depends on lexical categories (parts of speech.) You probably learned that there are 8 main parts of speech in grammar school. Linguistics takes a different approach to these categories and separates words into morphological and syntactic groups. Linguistics analyzes words according to their affixes and the words that follow or precede them. Hopefully, the following definitions of the parts of speech will make more sense and be of more use than the old definitions of grammar school books.

Open Class Words
Nouns _____ + plural endings
"dogs" Det. Adj. _____ (this is called a Noun Phrase)
"the big dog"
Verbs ____ + tense endings
"speaks" Aux. ____ (this is called a Verb Phrase)
"have spoken"
Adjectives ____ + er / est
"small" Det. ____ Noun
"the smaller child"
Adverbs Adj. + ly
"quickly" ____ Adj. or Verb or Adv.
"quickly ran"

Closed Class Words
Determiners a, an, the, this, that, these,
those, pronouns, quantities ____ Adj. Noun
"this blue book"
Auxiliary Verbs forms of be, have, may,
can, shall NP ____ VP
"the girl is swimming"
Prepositions at, in, on, under, over, of ____ NP (this is called a Prepositional Phrase)
"in the room"
Conjunctions and, but, or N or V or Adj. ____ N or V or Adj.
"apples and oranges"

Subcategorization defines the restrictions on which syntactic categories (parts of speech) can or cannot occur within a lexical item. These additional specifications of words are included in our mental lexicon. Verbs are the most common categories that are subcategorized. Verbs can either be transitive or intransitive. Transitive verbs take a direct object, while intransitive verbs take an indirect object (usually they need a preposition before the noun).
Transitive verb: to eat I ate an apple. (direct object)
Intransitive: to sleep I was sleeping in the bed. (indirect object)

Individual nouns can also be subcategorized. For example, the noun idea can be followed by a Prepositional Phrase or that and a sentence. But the noun compassion can only be followed by a Prepositional Phrase and not a sentence. (Ungrammatical sentences are marked with asterisks.)
the idea of stricter laws his compassion for the animals
the idea that stricter laws are necessary *his compassion that the animals are hurt

Phrase structure rules describe how phrases are formed and in what order. These rules define the following:
Noun Phrase (NP) (Det.) (Adj.) Noun (PP)
Verb Phrase (VP) Verb (NP) (PP)
Prepositional Phrase (PP) Prep. NP
Sentence (S) NP VP

The parentheses indicate the categories are optional. Verbs don't always have to be followed by prepositional phrases and nouns don't always have to be preceded by adjectives.

Passive Sentences
The difference between the two sentences "Mary hired Bill" and "Bill was hired by Mary" is that the first is active and the second is passive. In order to change an active sentence into a passive one, the object of the active must become the subject of the passive. The verb in the passive sentence becomes a form of "be" plus the participle form of the main verb. And the subject of the active becomes the object of the passive preceded by the word "by."

Active Passive
Mary hired Bill. Bill was hired by Mary.
Subject + Verb + Object Object + "be" + Verb + by + Subject

Part Three: Phonetics and Phonology

There are three types of the study of the sounds of language. Acoustic Phonetics is the study of the physical properties of sounds. Auditory Phonetics is the study of the way listeners perceive sounds. Articulatory Phonetics (the type this lesson is concerned with) is the study of how the vocal tracts produce the sounds.

The orthography (spelling) of words in misleading, especially in English. One sound can be represented by several different combinations of letters. For example, all of the following words contain the same vowel sound: he, believe, Lee, Caesar, key, amoeba, loudly, machine, people, and sea. The following poem illustrates this fact of English humorously (note the pronunciation of the bold words):

I take it you already know of tough and bough and cough and dough?
Some may stumble, but not you, on hiccough, thorough, slough, and through?
So now you are ready, perhaps, to learn of less familiar traps?
Beware of heard, a dreadful word, that looks like beard, but sounds like bird.
And dead, it's said like bed, not bead; for goodness' sake, don't call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat. (They rhyme with suite and straight and debt.)
A moth is not a moth in mother, nor both in bother, broth in brother.
And here is not a match for there, nor dear and fear, for bear and pear.
And then there's dose and rose and lose - just look them up - and goose and choose
And cork and work and card and ward and font and front and word and sword
And do and go, then thwart and cart, come, come! I've hardly made a start.
A dreadful language? Why man alive! I've learned to talk it when I was five.
And yet to write it, the more I tried, I hadn't learned it at fifty-five.
- Author Unknown

The discrepancy between spelling and sounds led to the formation of the International Phonetics Alphabet (IPA.) The symbols used in this alphabet can be used to represent all sounds of all human languages. The following is the English Phonetic alphabet. You might want to memorize all of these symbols, as most foreign language dictionaries use the IPA.

Phonetic Alphabet for English Pronunciation p pill d dill h heal ʌ but
b bill n neal l leaf aj light
m mill s seal r reef ɔj boy
f feel z zeal j you ɪ bit
v veal č chill w witch ɛ bet
θ thigh ǰ Jill i beet ʊ foot
ð thy ʍ which e bait ɔ awe
š shill k kill u boot a bar
ž azure g gill o boat ə sofa
t till ŋ ring æ bat aw cow

Some speakers of English pronounce the words which and witch differently, but if you pronounce both words identically, just use w for both words. And the sounds /ʌ/ and /ə/ are pronounced the same, but the former is used in stressed syllables, while the latter is used in unstressed syllables. This list does not even begin to include all of the phonetic symbols though. One other symbol is the glottal stop, ʔ which is somewhat rare in English. Some linguists in the United States traditionally use different symbols than the IPA symbols. These are listed below.
U.S. IPA
š ʃ
ž ʒ
č tʃ
ǰ dʒ
U ʊ

The production of any speech sound involves the movement of air. Air is pushed through the lungs, larynx (vocal folds) and vocal tract (the oral and nasal cavities.) Sounds produced by using air from the lungs are called pulmonic sounds. If the air is pushed out, it is called egressive. If the air is sucked in, it is called ingressive. Sounds produced by ingressive airstreams are ejectives, implosives, and clicks. These sounds are common among African and American Indian languages. The majority of languages in the world use pulmonic egressive airstream mechanisms, and I will present only these types of sounds in this lesson.

Consonants
Consonants are produced as air from the lungs is pushed through the glottis (the opening between the vocal cords) and out the mouth. They are classified according to voicing, aspiration, nasal/oral sounds, places of articulation and manners of articulation. Voicing is whether the vocal folds vibrate or not. The sound /s/ is called voiceless because there is no vibration, and the sound /z/ is called voiced because the vocal folds do vibrate (you can feel on your neck if there is vibration.) Only three sounds in English have aspiration, the sounds /b/, /p/ and /t/. An extra puff of air is pushed out when these sounds begin a word or stressed syllable. Hold a piece of paper close to your mouth when saying the words pin and spin. You should notice extra air when you say pin. Aspiration is indicated in writing with a superscript h, as in /pʰ/. Nasal sounds are produced when the velum (the soft palate located in the back of the roof of the mouth) is lowered and air is passed through the nose and mouth. Oral sounds are produced when the velum is raised and air passes only through the mouth.

Places of Articulation
Bilabial: lips together
Labiodental: lower lip against front teeth
Interdental: tongue between teeth
Alveolar: tongue near alveolar ridge on roof of mouth (in between teeth and hard palate)
Palatal: tongue on hard palate
Velar: tongue near velum
Glottal: space between vocal folds

The following sound is not found in the English language, although it is common in languages such as French and Arabic:
Uvular: raise back of tongue to uvula (the appendage hanging down from the velum)

Manners of Articulation
Stop: obstruct airstream completely
Fricative: partial obstruction with friction
Affricate: stop airstream, then release
Liquids: partial obstruction, no friction
Glides: little or no obstruction, must occur with a vowel

You should practice saying the sounds of the English alphabet to see if you can identify the places of articulation in the mouth. The sounds are described by voicing, place and then manner of articulation, so the sound /j/ would be called a voiced palatal glide and the sound /s/ would be called a voiceless alveolar fricative.

Bilabial Labiodental Interdental Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal
Stop (oral)

p
b

t
d

k
g

Nasal (stop)

m

n

ŋ

Fricative

f
v

θ
ð

s
z

š
ž

h
Affricate

č
ǰ

Glide

ʍ
w

j

ʍ
w

h
Liquid

l r

For rows that have two consonants, the top consonant is voiceless and the bottom consonant is voiced. Nasal stops are all voiced, as are liquids. The sound /j/ is also voiced. If sounds are in two places on the chart, that means they can be pronounced either way.

Vowels
Vowels are produced by a continuous airstream and all are voiced. They are classified according to height of the tongue, part of tongue involved, and position of the lips. The tongue can be high, mid, or low; and the part of the tongue used can be front, central or back. Only four vowels are produced with rounded lips and only four vowels are considered tense instead of lax. The sound /a/ would be written as a low back lax unrounded vowel. Many languages also have vowels called diphthongs, a sequence of two sounds, vowel + glide. Examples in English include oy in boy and ow in cow. In addition, vowels can be nasalized when they occur before nasal consonants. A diacritic mark [~] is placed over the vowel to show this. The vowel sounds in bee and bean are considered different because the sound in bean is nasalized.
Part of Tongue
Front Central Back
Tongue
Height High

i
ɪ

u
ʊ
Mid

e
ɛ

ə
ʌ

o
ɔ
Low

æ

a

The bold vowels are tense, and the italic vowels are rounded. English also includes the diphthongs: [aj] as in bite, [aw] as in cow, and [oj] as in boy.

For the complete IPA chart with symbols for the sounds of every human language, please visit the International Phonetic Association's website. And you're looking for a way to type English IPA symbols online, please visit ipa.typeit.org

Major Classes of Sounds (Distinctive Features)
All of the classes of sounds described above can be put into more general classes that include the patterning of sounds in the world's languages. Continuant sounds indicate a continuous airflow, while non-continuant sounds indicate total obstruction of the airstream. Obstruent sounds do not allow air to escape through the nose, while sonorant sounds have a relatively free airflow through the mouth or nose. The following table summarizes this information:

Obstruent Sonorant
Continuant fricatives liquids, glides, vowels
Non-Continuant oral stops, affricates nasal stops

Major Class Features
[+ Consonantal] consonants
[- Consonantal] vowels

[+Sonorant] nasals, liquids, glides, vowels
[- Sonorant] stops, fricatives, affricates (obstruents)

[+ Approximant] glides [j, w]
[- Approximant] everything else

Voice Features
[+ Voice] voiced
[- Voice] voiceless

[+ Spread Glottis] aspirated [pʰ, tʰ, kʰ]
[- Spread Glottis] unaspirated

[+ Constricted Glottis] ejectives, implosives
[- Constricted Glottis] everything else

Manner Features
[+ Continuant] fricatives [f, v, s, z, š, ž, θ, ð]
[- Continuant] stops [p, b, t, d, k, g, ʔ]

[+ Nasal] nasal consonants [m, n, ŋ]
[- Nasal] all oral consonants

[+ Lateral] [l]
[- Lateral] [r]

[+ Delayed Release] affricates [č, ǰ]
[- Delayed Release] stops [p, b, t, d, k, g, ʔ]

[+ Strident] “noisy” fricatives [f, v, s, z, š, ž]
[- Strident] [?, ð, h]

Place Features
[Labial] involves lips [f, v, p, b, w]

[Coronal] alveolar ridge to palate [θ, ð, s, z, t, d, š, ž, n, r, l]
[+ Anterior] interdentals and true alveolars
[- Anterior] retroflex and palatals [š, ž, č, ǰ, j]

[Dorsal] from velum back [k, g, ŋ]

[Glottal] in larynx [h, ʔ]

Vowels
Height [± high] [± low]
Backness [± back]
Lip Rounding [± round]
Tenseness [± tense]

Whereas phonetics is the study of sounds and is concerned with the production, audition and perception of of speech sounds (called phones), phonology describes the way sounds function within a given language and operates at the level of sound systems and abstract sound units. Knowing the sounds of a language is only a small part of phonology. This importance is shown by the fact that you can change one word into another by simply changing one sound. Consider the differences between the words time and dime. The words are identical except for the first sound. [t] and [d] can therefore distinguish words, and are called contrasting sounds. They are distinctive sounds in English, and all distinctive sounds are classified as phonemes.

Minimal Pairs
Minimal pairs are words with different meanings that have the same sounds except for one. These contrasting sounds can either be consonants or vowels. The words pin and bin are minimal pairs because they are exactly the same except for the first sound. The words read and rude are also exactly the same except for the vowel sound. The examples from above, time and dime, are also minimal pairs. In effect, words with one contrastive sound are minimal pairs. Another feature of minimal pairs is overlapping distribution. Sounds that occur in phonetic environments that are identical are said to be in overlapping distribution. The sounds of [ɪn] from pin and bin are in overlapping distribution because they occur in both words. The same is true for three and through. The sounds of [θr] is in overlapping distribution because they occur in both words as well.

Free Variation
Some words in English are pronounced differently by different speakers. This is most noticeable among American English speakers and British English speakers, as well as dialectal differences. This is evidenced in the ways neither, for example, can be pronounced. American English pronunciation is [niðər], while British English pronunciation is [najðər].

Phones and Allophones
Phonemes are not physical sounds. They are abstract mental representations of the phonological units of a language. Phones are considered to be any single speech sound of which phonemes are made. Phonemes are a family of phones regarded as a single sound and represented by the same symbol. The different phones that are the realization of a phoneme are called allophones of that phoneme. The use of allophones is not random, but rule-governed. No one is taught these rules as they are learned subconsciously when the native language is acquired. To distinguish between a phoneme and its allophones, I will use slashes // to enclose phonemes and brackets [] to enclose allophones or phones. For example, [i] and [ĩ] are allophones of the phoneme /i/; [ɪ] and [ɪ̃] are allophones of the phoneme /ɪ/.

Complementary Distribution
If two sounds are allophones of the same phoneme, they are said to be in complementary distribution. These sounds cannot occur in minimal pairs and they cannot change the meaning of otherwise identical words. If you interchange the sounds, you will only change the pronunciation of the words, not the meaning. Native speakers of the language regard the two allophones as variations of the same sound. To hear this, start to say the word cool (your lips should be pursed in anticipation of /u/ sound), but then say kill instead (with your lips still pursed.) Your pronunciation of kill should sound strange because cool and kill are pronounced with different allophones of the phoneme /k/.

Nasalized vowels are allophones of the same phoneme in English. Take, for example, the sounds in bad and ban. The phoneme is /æ/, however the allophones are [æ] and [æ̃]. Yet in French, nasalized vowels are not allophones of the same phonemes. They are separate phonemes. The words beau [bo] and bon [bõ] are not in complementary distribution because they are minimal pairs and have contrasting sounds. Changing the sounds changes the meaning of the words. This is just one example of differences between languages.

Phonological Rules
Assimilation: sounds become more like neighboring sounds, allowing for ease of articulation or pronunciation; such as vowels are nasalized before nasal consonants
- Harmony: non-adjacent vowels become more similar by sharing a feature or set of features (common in Finnish)
- Gemination: sound becomes identical to an adjacent sound
- Regressive Assimilation: sound on left is the target, and sound on right is the trigger

Dissimilation: sounds become less like neighboring sounds; these rules are quite rare, but one example in English is [fɪfθ] becoming [fɪft] (/f/ and /θ/ are both fricatives, but /t/ is a stop)

Epenthesis: insertion of a sound, e.g. Latin "homre" became Spanish "hombre"
- Prothesis: insertion of vowel sound at beginning of word
- Anaptyxis: vowel sound with predictable quality is inserted word-internally
- Paragoge: insertion of vowel sound at end of word
- Excrescence: consonant sound inserted between other consonants (also called stop-intrusion)

Deletion: deletion of a sound; e.g. French word-final consonants are deleted when the next word begins with a consonant (but are retained when the following word begins with a vowel)
- Aphaeresis: vowel sound deleted at beginning of word
- Syncope: vowel sound is deleted word-internally
- Apocope: vowel sound deleted at end of word

Metathesis: reordering of phonemes; in some dialects of English, the word asked is pronounced [æks]; children's speech shows many cases of metathesis such as aminal for animal

Lenition: consonant changes to a weaker manner of articulation; voiced stop becomes a fricative, fricative becomes a glide, etc.

Palatalization: sound becomes palatal when adjacent to a front vowel Compensatory Lengthening: sound becomes long as a result of sound loss, e.g. Latin "octo" became Italian "otto"

Assimilation in English
An interesting observation of assimilation rules is evidenced in the formation of plurals and the past tense in English. When pluralizing nouns, the last letter is pronounced as either [s], [z], or [əz]. When forming past tenses of verbs, the -ed ending is pronounced as either [t], [d], [əd]. If you were to sort words into three columns, you would be able to tell why certain words are followed by certain sounds:

Plural nouns Hopefully, you can determine which consonants produce which sounds. In the nouns, /s/ is added after voiceless consonants, and /z/ is added after voiced consonants. /əz/ is added after sibilants. For the verbs, /t/ is added after voiceless consonants, and /d/ is added after voiced consonants. /əd/ is added after alveolar stops. The great thing about this is that no one ever taught you this in school. But thanks to linguistics, you now know why there are different sounds (because of assimiliation rules, the consonants become more like their neighboring consonants.)
/s/ /z/ /əz/
cats dads churches
tips bibs kisses
laughs dogs judges

Past Tense
/t/ /d/ /əd/
kissed loved patted
washed jogged waded
coughed teased seeded

Writing Rules
A general phonological rule is A → B / D __ E (said: A becomes B when it occurs between D and E) Other symbols in rule writing include: C = any obstruent, V = any vowel, Ø = nothing, # = word boundary, ( ) = optional, and { } = either/or. A deletion rule is A → Ø / E __ (A is deleted when it occurs after E) and an insertion rule is Ø → A / E __ (A is inserted when it occurs after E).

Alpha notation is used to collapse similar assimilation rules into one. C → [Α voice] / __ [Α voice] (An obstruent becomes voiced when it occurs before a voiced obstruent AND an obstruent becomes voiceless when it occurs before a voiceless obstruent.) Similarly, it can be used for dissimilation rules too. C → [-Α voice] / __ [Α voice] (An obstruent becomes voiced when it occurs before a voiceless obstruent AND an obstruent becomes voiceless when it occurs before a voiced obstruent.) Gemination rules are written as C1C2 → C2C2 (for example, pd → dd)

Syllable Structure
There are three peaks to a syllable: nucleus (vowel), onset (consonant before nucleus) and coda (consonant after nucleus.) The onset and coda are both optional, meaning that a syllable could contain a vowel and nothing else. The nucleus is required in every syllable by definition. The order of the peaks is always onset - nucleus - coda. All languages permit open syllables (Consonant + Vowel), but not all languages allow closed syllables (Consonant + Vowel + Consonant). Languages that only allow open syllables are called CV languages. In addition to not allowing codas, some CV languages also have constraints on the number of consonants allowed in the onset.

The sonority profile dictates that sonority must rise to the nucleus and fall to the coda in every language. The sonority scale (from most to least sonorous) is vowels - glides - liquids - nasals - obstruents. Sonority must rise in the onset, but the sounds cannot be adjacent to or share a place of articulation (except [s] in English) nor can there be more than two consonants in the onset. This explains why English allows some consonant combinations, but not others. For example, price [prajs] is a well-formed syllable and word because the sonority rises in the onset (p, an obstruent, is less sonorous than r, a liquid); however, rpice [rpajs] is not a syllable in English because the sonority does not rise in the onset.

The Maximality Condition states that onsets are as large as possible up to the well-formedness rules of a language. Onsets are always preferred over codas when syllabifying words. There are also constraints that state the maximum number of consonants between two vowels is four; onsets and codas have two consonants maximally; and onsets and codas can be bigger only at the edges of words.

Part Four: Semantics and Pragmatics

Semantics
Lexical semantics is concerned with the meanings of words and the meaning of relationships among words, while phrasal semantics is concerned with the meaning of syntactic units larger than the word. Pragmatics is the study of how context affects meaning, such as how sentences are interpreted in certain situations.

Semantic properties are the components of meanings of words. For example, the semantic property "human" can be found in many words such as parent, doctor, baby, professor, widow, and aunt. Other semantic properties include animate objects, male, female, countable items and non-countable items.

The -nyms
Homonyms: different words that are pronounced the same, but may or may not be spelled the same (to, two, and too)

Polysemous: word that has multiple meanings that are related conceptually or historically (bear can mean to tolerate or to carry or to support)

Homograph: different words that are spelled identically and possibly pronounced the same; if they are pronounced the same, they are also homonyms (pen can mean writing utensil or cage)

Heteronym: homographs that are pronounced differently (dove the bird and dove the past tense of dive)

Synonym: words that mean the same but sound different (couch and sofa)

Antonym: words that are opposite in meaning
Complementary pairs: alive and dead
Gradable pairs: big and small (no absolute scale)

Hyponym: set of related words (red, white, yellow, blue are all hyponyms of "color")

Metonym: word used in place of another to convey the same meaning (jock used for athlete, Washington used for American government, crown used for monarcy)

Retronym: expressions that are no longer redundant (silent movie used to be redundant because a long time ago, all movies were silent, but this is no longer true or redundant)

Thematic Roles
Thematic roles are the semantic relationships between the verbs and noun phrases of sentences. The following chart shows the thematic roles in relationship to verbs of sentences:

Thematic Role Description Example
Agent the one who performs an action Maria ran
Theme the person or thing that undergoes an action Mary called John
Location the place where an action takes place It rains in Spain
Goal the place to which an action is directed Put the cat on the porch
Source the place from which an action originates He flew from Chicago to LA
Instrument the means by which an action is performed He cuts his hair with scissors
Experiencer one who perceives something She heard Bob play the piano
Causative a natural force that causes a change The wind destroyed the house
Possessor one who has something The tail of the cat got caught
Recipient one who receives something I gave it to the girl

Sentential Meaning
The meaning of sentences is built from the meaning of noun phrases and verbs. Sentences contain truth conditions if the circumstances in the sentence are true. Paraphrases are two sentences with the same truth conditions, despite subtle differences in structure and emphasis. The ball was kicked by the boy is a paraphrase of the sentence the boy kicked the ball, but they have the same truth conditions - that a boy kicked a ball. Sometimes the truth of one sentence entails or implies the truth of another sentence. This is called entailment and the opposite of this is called contradiction, where one sentence implies the falseness of another. He was assassinated entails that he is dead. He was assassinated contradicts with the statement he is alive.

Pragmatics
Pragmatics is the interpretation of linguistic meaning in context. Linguistic context is discourse that precedes a sentence to be interpreted and situational context is knowledge about the world. In the following sentences, the kids have eaten already and surprisingly, they are hungry, the linguistic context helps to interpret the second sentence depending on what the first sentence says. The situational context helps to interpret the second sentence because it is common knowledge that humans are not usually hungry after eating.

Maxims of Conversation
Grice's maxims for conversation are conventions of speech such as the maxim of quantity that states a speaker should be as informative as is required and neither more nor less. The maxim of relevance essentially states a speaker should stay on the topic, and the maxim of manner states the speaker should be brief and orderly, and avoid ambiguity. The fourth maxim, the maxim of quality, states that a speaker should not lie or make any unsupported claims.

Performative Sentences
In these types of sentences, the speaker is the subject who, by uttering the sentence, is accomplishing some additional action, such as daring, resigning, or nominating. These sentences are all affirmative, declarative and in the present tense. An informal test to see whether a sentence is performative or not is to insert the words I hereby before the verb. I hereby challenge you to a match or I hereby fine you $500 are both performative, but I hereby know that girl is not. Other performative verbs are bet, promise, pronounce, bequeath, swear, testify, and dismiss.

Presuppositions
These are implicit assumptions required to make a sentence meaningful. Sentences that contain presuppositions are not allowed in court because accepting the validity of the statement mean accepting the presuppositions as well. Have you stopped stealing cars? is not admissible in court because no matter how the defendant answers, the presupposition that he steals cars already will be acknowledged. Have you stopped smoking? implies that you smoke already, and Would you like another piece? implies that you've already had one piece.

Deixis
Deixis is reference to a person, object, or event which relies on the situational context. First and second person pronouns such as my, mine, you, your, yours, we, ours and us are always deictic because their reference is entirely dependent on context. Demonstrative articles like this, that, these and those and expressions of time and place are always deictic as well. In order to understand what specific times or places such expressions refer to, we also need to know when or where the utterance was said. If someone says "I'm over here!" you would need to know who "I" referred to, as well as where "here" is. Deixis marks one of the boundaries of semantics and pragmatics.

Part Five: Neurolinguistics

The human brain consists of 10 billion nerve cells (neurons) and billions of fibers that connect them. These neurons or gray matter form the cortex, the surface of the brain, and the connecting fibers or white matter form the interior of the brain. The brain is divided into two hemispheres, the left and right cerebral hemispheres. These hemispheres are connected by the corpus callosum. In general, the left hemisphere of the brain controls the right side of the body and vice versa.

The auditory cortex receives and interprets auditory stimuli, while the visual cortex receives and interprets visual stimuli. The angular gyrus converts the auditory stimuli to visual stimuli and vice versa. The motor cortex signals the muscles to move when we want to talk and is directed by Broca's area. The nerve fiber connecting Wernicke's and Broca's area is called the arcuate fasciculus.

Lateralization refers to any cognitive functions that are localized to one side of the brain or the other. Language is said to be lateralized and processed in the left hemisphere of the brain. Paul Broca first related language to the left side of the brain when he noted that damage to the front part of the left hemisphere (now called Broca's area) resulted in a loss of speech, while damage to the right side did not. He determined this through autopsies of patients who had acquired language deficits following brain injuries. A language disorder that follows a brain lesion is called aphasia, and patients with damage to Broca's area have slow and labored speech, loss of function words, and poor word order, yet good comprehension.

Carl Wernicke also used studies of autopsies to describe another type of aphasia that resulted from lesions in the back portion of the left hemisphere (now called Wernicke's area.) Unlike Broca's patients, Wernicke's spoke fluently and with good pronunciation, but with many lexical errors and a difficulty in comprehension. Broca's and Wernicke's area are the two main regions of the cortex of the brain related to language processing.

Aphasics can suffer from anomia, jargon aphasia, and acquired dyslexia. Anomia is commonly referred to as "tip of the tongue" phenomenon and many aphasics experience word finding difficulty on a regular basis. Jargon aphasia results in the substitution of one word or sound for another. Some aphasics may substitute similar words for each other, such as table for chair, or they may substitute completely unrelated words, such as chair for engine. Others may pronounce table as sable, substituting an s sound for a t sound. Aphasics who became dyslexic after brain damage are called acquired dyslexics. When reading aloud words printed on cards, the patients produced the following substitutions:

Stimuli Response One Response Two
Act Play Play
South East West
Heal Pain Medicine

The substitution of phonologically similar words, such as pool and tool, also provides evidence that a human's mental lexicon is organized by both phonology and semantics.

Broca's aphasics and some acquired dyslexics are unable to read function words, and when presented with them on the cards, the patients say no, as shown in the following example:

Stimuli One Response Stimuli Two Response
Witch Witch Which no!
Hour Time Our no!
Wood Wood Would no!

The patient's errors suggest our mental dictionary is further organized into parts consisting of major content words (first stimuli) and grammatical words (second stimuli.)

In addition, split-brain patients (those who have had their corpus callosum severed) provide evidence for language lateralization. If an object is placed in the left hand of split-brain patient whose vision is cut off, the person cannot name the object, but will know how to use it. The information is sent to the right side of the brain, but cannot be relayed to the left side for linguistic naming. However, if the object is placed in the person's right hand, the person can immediately name it because the information is sent directly to the left hemisphere.

Dichotic listening is another experimental technique, using auditory signals. Subjects hear a different sound in each ear, such as boy in the left ear and girl in the right ear or water rushing in the left ear and a horn honking in the right ear. When asked to state what they heard in each ear, subjects are more frequently correct in reporting linguistic stimuli in the right ear (girl) and nonverbal stimuli in the left ear (water rushing.) This is because the left side of the brain is specialized for language and a word heard in the right ear will transfer directly to the left side of the body because of the contralateralization of the brain. Furthermore, the right side of the brain is specialized for nonverbal stimuli, such as music and environmental sounds, and a noise heard in the left ear will transfer directly to the right side of the brain.

Part Six: Child Language Acquisition and Second Language Acquisition

Linguistic competence develops in stages, from babbling to one word to two word, then telegraphic speech. Babbling is now considered the earliest form of language acquisition because infants will produce sounds based on what language input they receive. One word sentences (holophrastic speech) are generally monosyllabic in consonant-vowel clusters. During two word stage, there are no syntactic or morphological markers, no inflections for plural or past tense, and pronouns are rare, but the intonation contour extends over the whole utterance. Telegraphic speech lacks function words and only carries the open class content words, so that the sentences sound like a telegram.

Three theories
The three theories of language acquisition: imitation, reinforcement and analogy, do not explain very well how children acquire language. Imitation does not work because children produce sentences never heard before, such as "cat stand up table." Even when they try to imitate adult speech, children cannot generate the same sentences because of their limited grammar. And children who are unable to speak still learn and understand the language, so that when they overcome their speech impairment they immediately begin speaking the language. Reinforcement also does not work because it actually seldomly occurs and when it does, the reinforcement is correcting pronunciation or truthfulness, and not grammar. A sentence such as "apples are purple" would be corrected more often because it is not true, as compared to a sentence such as "apples is red" regardless of the grammar. Analogy also cannot explain language acquisition. Analogy involves the formation of sentences or phrases by using other sentences as samples. If a child hears the sentence, "I painted a red barn," he can say, by analogy, "I painted a blue barn." Yet if he hears the sentence, "I painted a barn red," he cannot say "I saw a barn red." The analogy did not work this time, and this is not a sentence of English.

Acquisitions
Phonology: A child's error in pronunciation is not random, but rule-governed. Typical phonological rules include: consonant cluster simplification (spoon becomes poon), devoicing of final consonants (dog becomes dok), voicing of initial consonants (truck becomes druck), and consonant harmony (doggy becomes goggy, or big becomes gig.)

Morphology: An overgeneralization of constructed rules is shown when children treat irregular verbs and nouns as regular. Instead of went as the past tense of go, children use goed because the regular verbs add an -ed ending to form the past tense. Similarly, children use gooses as the plural of goose instead of geese, because regular nouns add an -s in the plural.

The "Innateness Hypothesis" of child language acquisition, proposed by Noam Chomsky, states that the human species is prewired to acquire language, and that the kind of language is also determined. Many factors have led to this hypothesis such as the ease and rapidity of language acquisition despite impoverished input as well as the uniformity of languages. All children will learn a language, and children will also learn more than one language if they are exposed to it. Children follow the same general stages when learning a language, although the linguistic input is widely varied.

The poverty of the stimulus states that children seem to learn or know the aspects of grammar for which they receive no information. In addition, children do not produce sentences that could not be sentences in some human language. The principles of Universal Grammar underlie the specific grammars of all languages and determine the class of languages that can be acquired unconsciously without instruction. It is the genetically determined faculty of the left hemisphere, and there is little doubt that the brain is specially equipped for acquisition of human language.

The "Critical Age Hypothesis" suggests that there is a critical age for language acquisition without the need for special teaching or learning. During this critical period, language learning proceeds quickly and easily. After this period, the acquisition of grammar is difficult, and for some people, never fully achieved. Cases of children reared in social isolation have been used for testing the critical age hypothesis. None of the children who had little human contact were able to speak any language once reintroduced into society. Even the children who received linguistic input after being reintroduced to society were unable to fully develop language skills. These cases of isolated children, and of deaf children, show that humans cannot fully acquire any language to which they are exposed unless they are within the critical age. Beyond this age, humans are unable to acquire much of syntax and inflectional morphology. At least for humans, this critical age does not pertain to all of language, but to specific parts of the grammar.

Second Language Acquisition Teaching Methods
Grammar-translation: the student memorizes words, inflected words, and syntactic rules and uses them to translate from native to target language and vice versa; most commonly used method in schools because it does not require teacher to be fluent; however, least effective method of teaching
Direct method: the native language is not used at all in the classroom, and the student must learn the new language without formal instruction; based on theories of first language acquisition
Audio-lingual: heavy use of dialogs and audio, based on the assumption that language learning is acquired mainly through imitation, repetition, and reinforcement; influenced by psychology
Natural Approach: emphasis on vocabulary and not grammar; focus on meaning, not form; use of authentic materials instead of textbook
Silent Way: teachers remain passive observers while students learn, which is a process of personal growth; no grammatical explanation or modeling by the teacher
Total Physical Response: students play active role as listener and performer, must respond to imperative drills with physical action
Suggestopedia: students always remain comfortable and relaxed and learn through memorization of meaningful texts, although the goal is understanding
Community Language Learning: materials are developed as course progresses and teacher understands what students need and want to learn; learning involves the whole person and language is seen as more than just communication
Community Language Teaching: incorporates all components of language and helps students with various learning styles; use of communication-based activities with authentic materials, needs of learner are taken into consideration when planning topics and objectives

Four skill areas
The four skill areas of learning a foreign language need to be addressed consistently and continually. Good lesson plans incorporate all four: Listening, Speaking, Reading (and Vocabulary), and Writing (and Grammar). Native speakers do not learn the skill areas separately, nor do they use them separately, so they shouldn’t be taught separately. However, it is easy to fall into the trap of teaching about the language, instead of actually teaching the language. Most textbooks resort to teaching grammar and vocabulary lists and nothing more.

Part Seven: Sociolinguistics

A dialect is a variety of language that is systematically different from other varieties of the same language. The dialects of a single language are mutually intelligible, but when the speakers can no longer understand each other, the dialects become languages. Geographical regions are also considered when dialects become languages. Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish are all considered separate languages because of regular differences in grammar and the countries in which they are spoken, yet Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes can all understand one another. Hindi and Urdu are considered mutually intelligible languages when spoken, yet the writing systems are different. On the other hand, Mandarin and Cantonese are mutually unintelligible languages when spoken, yet the writing systems are the same.

A dialect is considered standard if it is used by the upper class, political leaders, in literature and is taught in schools as the correct form of the language. Overt prestige refers to this dominant dialect. A non-standard dialect is associated with covert prestige and is an ethnic or regional dialect of a language. These non-standard dialects are just as linguistically sophisticated as the standard dialect, and judgments to the inferiority of them are based on social or racist judgments.

African-American English contains many regular differences of the standard dialect. These differences are the same as the differences among many of the world's dialects. Phonological differences include r and l deletion of words like poor (pa) and all (awe.) Consonant cluster simplification also occurs (passed pronounced like pass), as well as a loss of interdental fricatives. Syntactic differences include the double negative and the loss of and habitual use of the verb "be." He late means he is late now, but he be late means he is always late.

A lingua franca is a major language used in an area where speakers of more than one language live that permits communication and commerce among them. English is called the lingua franca of the whole world, while French used to be the lingua franca of diplomacy.

A pidgin is a rudimentary language of few lexical items and less complex grammatical rules based on another language. No one learns a pidgin as a native language, but children do learn creoles as a first language. Creoles are defined as pidgins that are adopted by a community as its native tongue.

Besides dialects, speakers may use different styles or registers (such as contractions) depending on the context. Slang may also be used in speech, but is not often used in formal situations or writing. Jargon refers to the unique vocabulary pertaining to a certain area, such as computers or medicine. Words or expressions referring to certain acts that are forbidden or frowned upon are considered taboo. These taboo words produce euphemisms, words or phrases that replace the expressions that are being avoided.

The use of words may indicate a society's attitude toward sex, bodily functions or religious beliefs, and they may also reflect racism or sexism in a society. Language itself is not racist or sexist, but the society may be. Such insulting words may reinforce biased views, and changes in society may be reflected in the changes in language.

Part Eight: Historical Linguistics

Languages that evolve from a common source are genetically related. These languages were once dialects of the same language. Earlier forms of Germanic languages, such as German, English, and Swedish were dialects of Proto-Germanic, while earlier forms of Romance languages, such as Spanish, French, and Italian were dialects of Latin. Furthermore, earlier forms of Proto-Germanic and Latin were once dialects of Indo-European.

Linguistic changes like sound shift is found in the history of all languages, as evidenced by the regular sound correspondences that exist between different stages of the same language, different dialects, and different languages. Words, morphemes, and phonemes may be altered, added or lost. The meaning of words may broaden, narrow or shift. New words may be introduced into a language by borrowing, or by coinage, blends and acronyms. The lexicon may also shrink as older words become obsolete.

Change comes about as a result of the restructuring of grammar by children learning the language. Grammars seem to become simple and regular, but these simplifications may be compensated for by more complexities. Sound changes can occur because of assimilation, a process of ease of articulation. Some grammatical changes are analogic changes, generalizations that lead to more regularity, such as sweeped instead of swept.

The study of linguistic change is called historical and comparative linguistics. Linguists identify regular sound correspondences using the comparative method among the cognates (words that developed from the same ancestral language) of related languages. They can restructure an earlier protolanguage and this allows linguists to determine the history of a language family.

Old English, Middle English, Modern English
Old English 499-1066 CE Beowulf
Middle English 1066-1500 CE Canterbury Tales
Modern English 1500-present Shakespeare

Phonological change: Between 1400 and 1600 CE, the Great Vowel Shift took place. The seven long vowels of Middle English underwent changes. The high vowels [i] and [u] became the diphthongs [aj] and [aw]. The long vowels increased tongue height and shifted upward, and [a] was fronted. Many of the spelling inconsistencies of English are because of the Great Vowel Shift. Our spelling system still reflects the way words were pronounced before the shift took place.

Morphological change: Many Indo-European languages had extensive case endings that governed word order, but these are no longer found in Romance languages or English. Although pronouns still show a trace of the case system (he vs. him), English uses prepositions to show the case. Instead of the dative case (indirect objects), English usually the words to or for. Instead of the genitive case, English uses the word of or 's after a noun to show possession. Other cases include the nominative (subject pronouns), accusative (direct objects), and vocative.

Syntactic change: Because of the lack of the case system, word order has become more rigid and strict in Modern English. Now it is strictly Subject - Verb - Object order.

Orthographic change: Consonant clusters have become simplified, such as hlaf becoming loaf and hnecca becoming neck. However, some of these clusters are still written, but are no longer pronounced, such as gnaw, write, and dumb.

Lexical change: Old English borrowed place names from Celtic, army, religious and educational words from Latin, and everyday words from Scandinavian. Angle and Saxon (German dialects) form the basis of Old English phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicon. Middle English borrowed many words from French in the areas of government, law, religion, literature and education because of the Norman Conquest in 1066 CE. Modern English borrowed words from Latin and Greek because of the influence of the classics, with much scientific terminology.

For more information, read the History of English page.

Part Nine: Classification of Languages

Indo-European family of languages

Italic (Latin)
Romance
Catalan
French
Italian
Occitan (Provençal)
Portuguese
Rhaeto-Romansch
Romanian
Spanish
Germanic
North Germanic
Danish
Faroese
Icelandic
Norwegian
Swedish
East Germanic
Gothic (extinct)
West Germanic
Afrikaans
Dutch
English
Flemish
Frisian
German
Yiddish
Slavic
Western
Czech
Polish
Slovak
Sorbian
Eastern
Belarusian
Russian
Ukrainian
Southern
Bulgarian
Croatian
Macedonian
Old Church Slavonic
Serbian
Slovene
Baltic
Latvian
Lithuanian
Old Prussian (extinct)
Celtic
Brythonic
Breton
Cornish (extinct)
Gaulish (extinct)
Welsh
Goidelic
Irish
Manx Gaelic (extinct)
Scots Gaelic
Hellenic (Greek)
Albanian
Armenian
Anatolian (extinct)
Tocharian (extinct)
Indo-Iranian
Indo-Aryan (Indic)
Assamese
Bengali
Bihari
Gujarati
Hindi-Urdu
Marathi
Punjabi
Romani
Sanskrit
Sindhi
Singhalese
Iranian
Avestan
Balochi
Farsi (Persian)
Kurdish
Pashtu (Afghan)
Sogdian

Uralic (or Finno-Ugric) is the other major family of languages spoken on the European continent. Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian are examples.

Afro-Asiatic languages are spoken in Northern Africa and the Middle East. They include Berber, Egyptian, Omotic and Cushitic languages (Somali, Iraqw) as well as the modern Semitic languages of Hebrew, Arabic and Amharic, in addition to languages spoken in biblical times, such as Aramaic, Akkadian, Babylonian, Canaanite, and Phoenician.

The Altaic languages are classified as Japanese and Korean, though some linguists separate these languages into their own groups.

Sino-Tibetan languages include Mandarin, Hakka, Wu, Burmese, Tibetan, and all of the Chinese "dialects."

Austro-tai languages include Indonesian, Javanese and Thai; while the Asiatic group includes Vietnamese.

The Dravidian languages of Tamil and Telugu are spoken in southeastern India and Sri Lanka.

The Caucasian language family consists of 40 different languages, and is divided into Cartvelian (south Caucasian), North-West Caucasian and North-East Caucasian language groups. Some languages are Georgian, Megrelian, Chechen, Ingush Avarian, Lezgian and Dargin. These languages are mostly spoken in Georgia, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Jordan and parts of the Russian federation.

The Niger-Congo family includes most of the African languages. About 1,500 languages belong to this group, including the Bantu languages of Swahili, Tswana, Xhosa, Zulu, Kikuyu, and Shona. Other languages are Ewe, Mina, Yoruba, Igbo, Wolof, Kordofanian and Fulfulde.

Other African language groups are Nilo-Saharan, which includes 200 languages spoken in Central and Eastern Africa; and Khoisan, the click languages of southern Africa. The Khoisan group only contains about 30 languages, most of which are spoken in Namibia and Botswana.

The Austronesian family also contains about 900 languages, spoken all over the globe. Hawaiian, Maori, Tagalog, and Malay are all representatives of this language family.

Many languages are, or were, spoken in North and South America by the native peoples before the European conquests. Knowledge of these languages is limited, and because many of the languages are approaching extinction, linguists have little hope of achieving a complete understanding of the Amerindian language families.

Return to top of page ↑

© 1997 - 2011 Jennifer Wagner • ielanguages [at] gmail [dot] com

Weekly Newsletter • Recent Updates • Disclaimer • Site Map

MyFreeCopyright.com Registered & Protected

Icon

Videos
Translate
Random
Top Pages (53)

53 Online
0digg
Share
My Bookmarks

Dardic

2011-10-10T23:58:00.000-07:00

Dardic languages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dardic
Geographic
distribution: eastern Afghanistan, Kashmir
Linguistic classification: Indo-European

Indo-Iranian
Indo-Aryan
Dardic

Subdivisions:
Chitral
Kashmiri
Kohistani
Kunar
Shina

The Dardic languages (Perso-Arabic: زبان‌ داردی, Devanagari: दार्दी भाषाएँ) are a sub-group of the Indo-Aryan languages spoken in northern Pakistan, eastern Afghanistan, and the Indian region of Jammu and Kashmir.[1] Kashmiri is the most prominent Dardic language, with an established literary tradition and official recognition as one of the national languages of India.[1][2][3]
Contents
[hide]

1 Position in Indo-Iranian languages
2 Characteristics of Dardic languages
2.1 Loss of aspiration
2.2 Dardic metathesis and epenthesis
2.3 Verb position in Dardic
3 List of Dardic languages
4 See also
5 Notes
6 Sources
7 References

[edit] Position in Indo-Iranian languages

The Dardic group has traditionally been defined as a sub-group of the Indo-Aryan languages which experienced strong influence from the Nuristani and East Iranian languages. Nuristani, a group of languages spoken in northeast Afghanistan, has sometimes been included in Dardic, but is today generally regarded as an independent group, as one of the three sub-groups of Indo-Iranian, following the studies of Georg Morgenstierne in 1973 to 1975.

There is still some dispute regarding the ultimate classification of the Dardic languages. The very existence of the family has been called into question by some, though the Dardic languages share common features different from Indo-Aryan, such as the so-called Dardic metathesis (karma => krama).

Except for Kashmiri, all of the Dardic languages are small minority languages which have not been sufficiently studied. In many cases they are spoken in areas difficult to access due to mountainous terrain and/or armed conflicts in the region. All of the languages (including Kashmiri) have been historically influenced by more prominent (non-Dardic) neighboring languages.

While it is true that many Dardic languages have been influenced by non-Dardic neighbors, Dardic may in turn also have left a discernible imprint on non-Dardic Indo-Aryan languages, such as Punjabi[4] and allegedly even far beyond.[5][6] It has also been asserted that some Pahari languages of Uttarakhand demonstrate Dardic influence.[4][7] Although it has not been conclusively established, some linguists have hypothesized that Dardic may, in ancient times, have enjoyed a much bigger linguistic zone, stretching from the "mouth of the Indus" (i.e. Sindh) northwards in an arc, and then eastwards through modern day Himachal Pradesh to Kumaon.[8][9][10]
[edit] Characteristics of Dardic languages

The languages of the Dardic group share some common defining characteristics, including the loss of aspirated sounds and word ordering that is unique for Indo-Iranian languages.
[edit] Loss of aspiration

Virtually all Dardic languages have experienced a partial or complete loss of aspirated consonants.[11][12] Khowar uses the word buum for earth (Sanskrit: bhumi),1 Pashai uses the word duum for smoke (Hindi: dhuan) and Kashmiri uses the word dod for milk (Sanskrit: dugdha, Hindi: doodh).[11][12] Tonality has developed in some (but not all) Dardic languages, such as Khowar and Pashai, as a compensation.[12] Punjabi and Western Pahari languages similarly lost aspiration but have virtually all developed tonality to partially compensate (e.g. Punjabi kar for house, compare with Hindi ghar).[11]
[edit] Dardic metathesis and epenthesis

Both ancient and modern Dardic languages demonstrate a marked tendency towards metathesis where a "pre- or postconsonantal 'r' is shifted forward to a preceding syllable".[4][13] This was seen in Ashokan rock edicts (erected 269 BCE to 231 BCE) in the Gandhara region, where Dardic dialects were and still are widespread. Examples include a tendency to misspell the Sanskrit words priyadarshi (one of the titles of Emperor Ashoka) as priyadrashi and dharma as dhrama.[13] Modern-day Kalasha uses the word driga (Sanskrit: dirgha, meaning long).[13] Palula uses drubalu (Sanskrit: durbala, weak) and brhuj (Sanskrit: bhurja, birch tree).[13] Kashmiri uses drolid2 (Sanskrit: daridra, impoverished) and krama (Sanskrit: karma, work or action).[13] Western Pahari languages (such as Dogri), Sindhi and Lahnda (Western Punjabi) also share this Dardic tendency to metathesis though they are considered non-Dardic, for example in the Punjabi word drakhat (from Persian: darakht, tree).[4][14]

Dardic languages also display a tendency for consonantal epenthesis, where consonants are inserted or altered in a word. Kashmiri, for instance, has a marked tendency to switch k to ch and j to z (e.g. Sanskrit jan/person or living being, related to Persian cognate jān/life, is altered to zan/person in Kashmiri) .[4] Punjabi and Western Pahari share the epenthesis tendency also, though they are non-Dardic (e.g. compare Hindi dekho/look to Punjabi vekho and Kashmiri vuchiv).[4]
[edit] Verb position in Dardic

Unlike most other Indo-Aryan (or Iranian) languages, several Dardic languages present "verb second" as the normal grammatical form. This is similar to many Germanic languages, such as English.[15]
Language
English (Germanic) This is a horse. We will go to Tokyo.
Kashmiri (Dardic) Yi chhu akh gur. As gachhav Tokyo.
Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan) Esha eka ashva asti.3 Vayaṃ Tokyo gacchāmaḥ.
Dari Persian In yak hasb ast. Maa ba Tokyo khaahem raft.
Hindi-Urdu (Indo-Aryan) Ye ek ghora hai.4 Hum Tokyo jaenge.
Punjabi (Indo-Aryan) Ae ikk kora ai. Assi Tokyo javange.
[edit] List of Dardic languages

Dardic languages can be organized into the following subfamilies:[11]

Pashai languages, which includes Pashayi
Kunar languages, which includes Gawar-Bati, Dameli, Shumashti and Nangalami (includes Grangali)
Chitral languages, which includes Khowar and Kalasha
Kohistani languages, which includes Kalami, Torwali, Kalkoti, Indus Kohistani, Bateri, Chilisso, Gowro, Wotapuri-Katarqalai and Tirahi
Shina languages, including Shina, Brokskad (the Shina of Baltistan and Ladakh), Ushojo, Domaaki, Palula and Savi
Kashmiri languages, including Kashmiri, Poguli, Rambani, and Kishtwari

[edit] See also

Dard people
Nuristani languages

[edit] Notes

1.^ The Khowar word for earth is more accurately represented, with tonality, as buúm rather than buum, where ú indicates a rising tone.
2.^ The word drolid actually includes a Kashmiri half-vowel, which is difficult to render in the Urdu, Devnagri and Roman scripts alike. Sometimes, an umlaut is used when it occurs in conjunction with a vowel, so the word might be more accurately rendered as drölid.
3.^ Sandhi rules in Sanskrit allow the combination of multiple neighboring words together into a single word. Also, Sanskrit has two distinct sounds corresponding to 'sh', ष (phonetically represented as 'ṣ', as in eṣa/this) and श (phonetically represented as 'ś', as in aśva/horse). The 'a' shown at word endings here is the Sanskrit schwa, and pronounced 'ə' (similar to the ending 'e' in the German name, Nietzsche). So, the sentence Esha eka ashva asti is more correctly pronounced as Eshə ekə ashvə asti and, in actual Sanskrit literature, would usually be shortened to Eshə ekoshvosti (or, more correctly maintaining the distinction between the two 'sh' shounds, Eṣə ekośvosti).
4.^ Hindi-Urdu, and other non-Dardic Indo-Aryan languages, also sometimes utilize a "verb second" order (similar to Kashmiri and English) for dramatic effect.[16] "Ye aik ghora hai" is the normal conversational form in Hindi-Urdu. "Ye hai aik ghora" is also grammatically correct but indicates a dramatic revelation or other surprise. This dramatic form is often used in news headlines in Hindi-Urdu, Punjabi and other Indo-Aryan languages.

[edit] Sources

Morgenstierne, G. Irano-Dardica. Wiesbaden 1973;
Morgenstierne, G. Die Stellung der Kafirsprachen. In Irano-Dardica, 327-343. Wiesbaden, Reichert 1975
Decker, Kendall D. Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan, Volume 5. Languages of Chitral.
The Comparative study of Urdu and Khowar. Badshah Munir Bukhari National Language Authority Pakistan 2003.
National Institute of Pakistani Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University & Summer Institute of Linguistics [1]
Dardic language tree

Methatesis

2011-10-10T23:54:00.003-07:00

http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~ehume/papers/Hume-ia_model-final.pdf

THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS
ELIZABETH HUME
The Ohio State University
This paper addresses three key observations relating to crosslinguistic patterns of metathesis.
First, the order of sounds resulting from metathesis can differ from language to language such
that a similar combination of sounds can be realized in one order in one language, but in the
reverse order in another language. Second, for some sound combinations, only one order is commonly
attested as the result of metathesis, while for other combinations, either order can be
observed. Third, the acoustic/auditory cues to the identification of the sequence resulting from
metathesis are often better than those of the expected, yet nonoccurring, order. These patterns
receive a straightforward explanation when we consider the phonetic nature of the sounds involved
as well as the speaker/hearer’s knowledge of native sound patterns and their frequency of occurrence.
Neither factor alone is sufficient to provide a predictive account of metathesis. This study
shows, however, that by taking into account both factors, we are able to understand why certain
sound combinations tend to undergo metathesis, why others are common results of metathesis,
why patterns of metathesis differ across languages, and, importantly, why metathesis occurs in
the first place.*
1. INTRODUCTION. Metathesis is the process whereby in certain languages the expected
linear ordering of sounds is reversed under certain conditions. Thus, in a string
of sounds where we would expect the ordering to be . . . xy . . . , we find instead . . .
yx . . . . In the verbal system of the Dravidian language Kui (Winfield 1928), for example,
the expected ordering of a stem-final consonant and suffix-initial labial is reversed
just in case the stem ends in a velar stop (e.g. /bluk pa/ [blupka] ‘to break’, cf.
/gas pa/ [gaspa] ‘to hang’). While variation in the linear ordering of elements is
typical in the domain of syntax, it is comparatively striking in phonology and differs
in nature from most other processes which are typically defined in terms of a single
sound, or target, that undergoes a change in a specified context.
The apparently distinct nature of metathesis has resulted in the perpetuation of what
one might refer to as the METATHESIS MYTH, the commonly held view of metathesis as
sporadic and irregular, restricted to performance errors, child language, or sound change.
This view is regularly expressed in the linguistic literature, including the most up-todate
instructional texts and dictionaries (e.g. Crystal 1997, Spencer 1996).
* This study has benefited from the input of many individuals and I am very grateful to them for their
suggestions and criticisms. I would like to thank Mary Beckman, Mary Bradshaw, Nick Clements, Peter
Culicover, Keith Johnson, Ilse Lehiste, He´le`ne Loevenbruck, Matt Makashay, Jeff Mielke, Jennifer Muller,
David Odden, John Ohala, Sharon Peperkamp, Mark Pitt, Keren Rice, Anton Rytting, Shari Speer, Donca
Steriade, Steve Winters, Richard Wright, and Draga Zec. I would also like to acknowledge the many linguists
who generously shared their knowledge of specific languages with me. In this regard I would like to thank
Outi Bat-El (Modern Hebrew), Marika Butskhrikidze (Georgian), Catherine Callaghan (Mutsun), Sheldon
Harrison (Mokilese), Larry Hyman (Basaa), Hjalmar Peterson (Faroese), Miklo´s To¨rkenczy (Hungarian),
Krisztina Polgardi (Hungarian), Wolfgang Schulze (Udi), Grover Hudson (Sidamo and other Ethiopian languages),
Deborah Schmidt (Basaa), John Wolff (Tagalog, Cebuano), and Fernando Martinez-Gil (Old Spanish).
My thanks also go to Jeff Mielke, Jennifer Muller, and Misun Seo for their valuable research assistance.
Finally, I would like to thank the editor of this journal, Brian Joseph, associate editor Eugene Buckley,
editorial assistant Hope Dawson, and two anonymous referees for their very helpful input. My sincere
apologies to those whom I have inadvertently forgotten to acknowledge. This research was supported by a
grant from the National Science Foundation: SBR-9809732.
203
204 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
An important factor underlying this view relates to data.1 Despite the fact that numerous
cases of metathesis are reported in the literature, basic knowledge has been lacking
concerning the full range of metatheses that are possible in language, under what conditions
metathesis applies, why metathesis happens, and how metathesis interacts with
other processes affecting sound structure. This information is critical to providing an
accurate picture of the nature of metathesis. It is also of crucial importance for advancing
our knowledge of language since developing an explanatory model of language is
impossible without a clear understanding of the fundamental processes possible.
It is therefore significant that more recent studies are bolstering the previously existing
literature to create a solid empirical foundation for the study of metathesis.2 These
works include crosslinguistic surveys (e.g. Bailey 1970, Blevins & Garrett 1998, Grammont
1933, Hock 1985, Hume 1998, 2001, Janda 1984, Langdon 1976, McCarthy 1989,
Mielke & Hume 2001, Semiloff-Zelasko 1973, Silva 1973, Ultan 1978, Wanner 1989),
in-depth studies of metathesis in individual languages or language families (e.g. Alexander
1985, Besnier 1987, Black 1974, Butskhrikidze & van de Weijer 2001, Delancey
1989, Dume´nil 1983, 1987, Hume 1997b, Hume & Seo 2004, Isebaert 1988, Keyser
1975, Laycock 1982, Lyche 1995, Malone 1971, 1985, McCarthy 2000, Montreuil
1981, Powell 1985, Shaver & Shaver 1989, Smith 1984, Sohn 1980, Thompson &
Thompson 1969, Timberlake 1985), and experimental work exploring psycholinguistic
influences on metathesis (e.g. Fay 1966, Makashay 2001, Winters 2001). An online
database of metathesis cases is also being developed and will ultimately contain information
on all reported cases of metathesis.3 It is clear from these studies that while
metathesis is less common than processes such as assimilation and deletion, it can
nonetheless occur productively in a wide range of languages.
Yet, despite this large body of literature, to date there is no unified, explanatory
account of why metathesis occurs, why it favors certain sound combinations, and why
we obtain the output that we do. One reason for this relates to the observation that
crosslinguistically, metathesis can appear to be random due to the fact that a string of
sounds can be realized in one order in one language but in the opposite order in another
language, as pointed out by Blevins and Garrett (1998). Consider metathesis involving
a glottal consonant in Balangao, Hungarian, Pawnee, and Basaa. As I outline below,
in the first two languages, the glottal is realized after a consonant, while it surfaces
before a consonant in the last two.
In Balangao, vowel deletion leads to the juxtaposition of two consonants (e.g.
/ba√ad-an/ [ba√dan] ‘time of returning’). When this would give rise to the glottals
1 An additional factor relating to the perpetuation of the metathesis myth concerns the nature of phonological
theories. In linear and nonlinear phonological theories, there is a principled reason to resist recognizing
metathesis as a legitimate phonological process of segment reversal: extending the theory to account for the
inherently distinct nature of metathesis has the potential of opening ‘a Pandora’s box of implausible-seeming
. . . processes’ (Janda 1984:92). Indeed, Webb (1974) claims that metathesis does not exist as a regular
phonological process in synchronic grammar. For additional discussion, see Hume 2001.
2 A more comprehensive listing of references for metathesis can be found at http://www.ling.ohiostate.
edu/ ehume/metathesis/bibliography/.
3 The complete database is housed in the Department of Linguistics at the Ohio State University. For a
listing of metatheses in the database as well as information on each case, see the metathesis website: http://
www.ling.ohio-state.edu/ ehume/metathesis/.
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 205
[≈, h] occurring before a nasal or oral plosive, the expected ordering of the sound
combination is reversed, and the glottal occurs after the plosive, as in 1 (Shetler 1976).
(1) Balangao
INPUT SURFACE EXPECTED ORDER GLOSS
≈i-hégép ≈ighép *≈ihgép ‘bring in’
pRhéd-én pRdhén *pRhdén ‘allow, accept’
géhéb-én gébhén *géhbén ‘burn it’
ma-hédém madhém *mahdém ‘night’
CV-≈opat ≈op≈at *≈o≈pat ‘four each’
CV-≈éném ≈én≈ém *≈é≈ném ‘six each’
A similar pattern is observed in Hungarian, though forms that undergo metathesis
are limited to stems with [h] and an approximant. The relevant forms are a subclass
of morphemes whose last nucleus alternates with ; the vowel has traditionally been
analyzed as epenthetic and is subject to vowel harmony (e.g. /bokr/ [bokor], [bokr-ot]
‘bush.NOM/ACC’, /term/ [terem], [term-et] ‘hall.NOM/ACC’). Given the order of the glottal
before the approximant in the dative forms in 2, the expected linear order of the sounds
in the plural is glottal approximant. The order is reversed, however, with the glottal
consistently occurring after the consonant (Vago 1980, Kenesei et al. 1998, Sipta´r &
To¨rkenczy 2000).
(2) Hungarian
DATIVE PLURAL EXPECTED ORDER GLOSS
tehernek terhek *tehrek ‘load’
peheynek peyhek *pehyek ‘fluff’
keheynek keyhek *kehyek ‘chalice’
Metathesis in Pawnee is almost the mirror image of that observed in Hungarian. In
this case, the expected sequence /r h/ is reversed so that the glottal is positioned
before the consonant, as shown in 3 (Parks 1976).
(3) Pawnee
INPUT SURFACE GLOSS
ti-ir-hisask-hus tihrisasku ‘he is called’
ti-a-hura r-hata tahurahrata ‘it’s a hole in the ground’
ti-ur-ha k-ca tuhrakca ‘a tree is standing’
A glottal is also realized postvocalically in Basaa, a more general case of the metathesis
observed in Pawnee. In Basaa, metathesis involves the glottal fricative of the indirective
causative morpheme and a stem-final consonant (Schmidt 1994). The causative
marker is analyzed as /-aha/, with the initial vowel alternating with . The full morpheme
is realized following a CVCVC stem, as in 4a. After a CV or CVC stem, the initial
vowel of the marker is absent, shown in 4b and 4c respectively. Metathesis can be seen
in the set of examples in 4c where the expected ordering of the consonant and glottal
fricative is reversed. Other forms with consonant clusters in 4a show that metathesis
does not affect all consonant types (tones have been omitted for simplicity).
206 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
(4) Basaa
UNSUFFIXED INDIRECT CAUSATIVE NOMINALIZED GLOSS
a. kobol koblaha koblak ‘peel’
pidip pid1aha pid1ak ‘hate’
a√al e√laha a√lak ‘tell’
b. ce ciha cek ‘destroy’
l: loha l:k ‘arrive’
ha heha hak ‘put’
c. lεl lehla lεlεk ‘cross’
te√ tih√a te√ek ‘tie’
1on 1uhna 1onok ‘promise’
1:l 1ohla 1:l:k ‘burst’
at ehda adak ‘unite’
The sample of metathesis cases just presented illustrates the challenge for any explanation
of metathesis: metathesis can appear to be random crosslinguistically since two
elements can surface in one order in one language but in precisely the opposite order
in another language.
A predictive theory of metathesis must also account for the observation that within
the set of attested metatheses, sound combinations can differ with respect to whether
one or both orders of the sounds is generally attested as the result of metathesis crosslinguistically.
As we just saw, for instance, when one of two consonants involved is a
glottal, neither order of the sounds seems to be favored crosslinguistically; rather, both
orders are observed emerging as the result of metathesis, depending on the language.
Metathesis involving homorganic liquids and nasals also seems to fall into this category;
the result of metathesis may be nasal liquid or liquid nasal, again depending on
the language. Old Spanish and Chawchila serve to illustrate.
Metathesis in Old Spanish, shown in 5a, was conditioned by vowel syncope in the
future and conditional formations of the verbwhich resulted in the contiguity of /nr/
(examples are given for future forms of the verb). The metathesized form competed
with one in which an obstruent stop was realized between the nasal and liquid. While
both coexisted in all forms of the future and conditional in Old Spanish, only the variant
with the intrusive consonant has survived in Modern Spanish (Wanner 1989, Martinez-
Gil 1990). In Chawchila (5b), metathesis is attested in the intensive possessor suffix
which displays two alternants, [-ilin] and [-inl-] (Newman 1944; see related discussion
in Stonham 1990). The VCVC alternant occurs word-finally while the VCC variant is
realized before a vowel-initial suffix. Newman (1944) reports that the same process
takes place within the unanalyzable noun theme, although no examples are provided.
While the linear ordering of similar consonants in the two languages changes by metathesis,
the order of the output differs: in Old Spanish, the nasal is prevocalic and the
liquid preconsonantal, while the reverse order is found in Chawchila.
(5) a. Old Spanish
INFINITIVE FUTURE (1SG) EXPECTED ORDER GLOSS
poner porne´, pondre´ *ponre´ ‘to put’
tener terne´, tendre´ *tenre´ ‘to have’
venir verne´, vendre´ *venre´ ‘to come’
b. Chawchila
tihthilin ‘one with many head lice’
patthilin ‘body-louse’
cawa ≈an patthinli ‘[he] shouted at the one with many body-lice’
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 207
There are also sound combinations where only one order is typically observed as
the result of metathesis. For example, when an intervocalic stop and fricative are involved,
the stop consistently surfaces before a vowel (Steriade 2001, cf. Silva 1973,
Makashay 2001). Consider Udi metathesis in 6. When a coronal plosive (oral stop or
affricate) would be expected to precede a coronal fricative or affricate through morpheme
concatenation, the stop consistently surfaces instead after the strident consonant.
Examples from the language’s verbal morphology illustrate. The last four forms demonstrate
that a noncoronal consonant does not metathesize with a following sibilant.
(6) Udi (Schulze 2002)
INPUT SURFACE GLOSS
tad-esun tast’un4 ‘to give’
t’it’-esun t’ist’un ‘to run’
et+-esun e+t+’un ‘to bring’
bafd-sa bafst’a ‘falling into’
bot’-sa bost’a ‘cutting’
et+-sa e+t+’a ‘bringing’
tat’und-e+a tat’un+t’a ‘they (let) bring’
cf. ak’-esun ak’sun ‘to see’
aq’-esun aq’sun ‘to take’
lap-esun lapsun ‘to put on’
t+alx-sa t+alxsa ‘knowing’
A similar pattern is exemplified by metathesis in Faroese and Lithuanian. Where a
postvocalic fricative followed by two stop consonants would be expected, we find
instead the fricative flanked by the two stops. This can be seen for Faroese in 7, where
a velar stop metathesizes with an adjacent coronal fricative just in case it is followed
by another stop consonant (Lockwood 1955, Jacobson & Matras 1961, Rischel 1972,
Hume & Seo 2004).
(7) Faroese
FEM. SG. MASC. SG. NEUT. SG. EXPECTED ORDER GLOSS
baisk baiskυr baikst *baiskt ‘bitter’
fεsk fεskυr fεkst *fεskt ‘fresh’
rask raskυr rakst *raskt ‘energetic’
A similar pattern can be observed in Lithuanian, illustrated in 8 by a comparison of
the third person singular past imperfective verbforms with those of the imperative and
infinitive. In the former the order is fricative stop, while in the latter the order is
reversed, giving stop fricative (Kenstowicz 1972, Ambrazas 1997, Hume & Seo
2004).
(8) Lithuanian
3SG. PAST IMPERF. IMPER. SG. INFIN. EXPECTED ORDER GLOSS
plyeske plyeksk plyeksti *plyeskti ‘flash intensely’
tvyeske tvyeksk tvyeksti *tvyeskti ‘flash briefly’
bre+ko brek+k brek+ti *bre+kti ‘break (of dawn)’
brizto briksk briksti *briskti ‘fray’
4 There are two additional facts about the data that should be noted: first, syncope of unstressed /e/
provides the context for metathesis, and second, the coronal stop is realized as voiceless and glottalized after
a consonant.
208 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
In both Faroese and Lithuanian, the expected order is altered so that the fricative is
positioned between the two stops. To my knowledge, there are no attested cases of
metathesis where a stop shifts from postvocalic to interconsonantal position (e.g. /Vkst/
N *[Vskt]).
The direction of metathesis involving intervocalic sonorant and stop consonants also
favors one order: given a sequence of two intervocalic consonants, VC1C2V, the obstruent
typically occurs in C2 position, the sonorant in C1.5 For example, in Elmolo, a
lowland East Cushitic language, metathesis occurs in the plural formation of nouns
(Zaborsky 1986). One type of plural is formed by the addition of the suffix /-o/, as in
9a. When the medial or final consonant of a bisyllabic noun is a (nongeminate) liquid,
the vowel of the last syllable elides, as in 9b. But metathesis occurs when the obstruent
stop would otherwise occur in C1 position, as shown in 9c.
(9) Elmolo
SINGULAR PLURAL GLOSS
a. karris karriso ‘cheek’
e¯k e¯ko ‘fire’
na¯n na¯no ‘harpoon’
or oro ‘tree’
b. ilik ilko ‘tooth’
t+ilik t+ilko ‘foot’
elem elmo ‘sheep’
elon-te elno ‘cowry shell’
c. tikir tirko ‘catfish’
deker derko ‘horn’
mukul mulko ‘iron’
A similar pattern is observed for Sidamo in 10, where a root-final obstruent and a
following nasal metathesize; the nasal is realized as homorganic with the adjacent
obstruent. Metathesis systematically occurs before suffixes beginning with /n/, the only
suffix-initial sonorant in the language (Hudson 1975). A similar process is observed
in other Ethiopian languages such as Darasa, Gedeo, Hadiyya, and Kambata (Hudson
1975, 1995).
(10) Sidamo
INPUT SURFACE GLOSS
hab-nemmo hambemmo ‘we forget’
gud-nonni gundonni ‘they finished’
dod-nanni dondanni ‘he will run’
it-noommo intoommo ‘we have eaten’
has-nemmo hansemmo ‘we look for’
duk-nanni du√kanni ‘they carry’
ag-nummo a√gummo ‘we drank’
ag-no a√go ‘let’s drink’
ag-ni a√gi ‘he drank’
In the examples just cited, an obstruent occurs by metathesis between a sonorant consonant
and a vowel (VSonObstV). Cases in which the result of metathesis has the obstruent
5 This type of metathesis has been used as evidence for the SYLLABLE CONTACT LAW, which requires the
sonority of the coda to be greater than that of the following onset (Vennemann 1988). See Hume 1998, 2001
and Hume & Seo 2004 for arguments against this analysis of metathesis and Seo 2003 for arguments against
the syllable contact law more generally.
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 209
positioned before the sonorant consonant (VObstSonV) are less common, though not unattested.
Of the thirty-seven cases of consonant/consonant metathesis examined that involve
morphophonemic alternations in synchronic grammars, eleven involve obstruent/
sonorant combinations. In ten of these cases, the obstruent occurs by metathesis prevocalically
after the sonorant consonant (VSonObstV), while in one, the Costanoan language
Mutsun, the obstruent occurs postvocalically before the sonorant (see the discussion in
§4).
It has also been observed that acoustic/auditory cues to the identification of the
sequence resulting from metathesis are often better, or optimized, compared to those
of the expected, yet nonoccurring, order (Hume 1998, Steriade 2001). Cases involving
obstruent stops provide a clear example of this type of pattern. It is well established
that obstruent stops depend heavily on contextual cues such as release burst and formant
transitions for the identification of their manner and place of articulation (see §2.3).
Thus, the occurrence of stops in a context in which these cues are present should be
preferred to their occurrence in a context in which the cues are absent or partially
masked. In this view then, prevocalic position can be considered preferable to preconsonantal
position since both release burst and transition cues are present in the former
context. Similarly, adjacency to a vowel is preferable to nonadjacency to a vowel. Of
interest here is the observation that these are precisely the contexts to which stops
commonly shift by metathesis. As just seen for stop/fricative metathesis in Faroese and
Lithuanian, the stop surfaces after a vowel instead of between two consonants. A stop/
fricative sequence is also involved in Udi, illustrated in 6, with the stop occurring in
prevocalic position. Similar patterns are observed in Elmolo (9) and Sidamo (10), where
a stop shifts to prevocalic position at the expense of nasals and liquids. These cases
represent a recurring pattern in metathesis: a consonant with potentially weak phonetic
cues often emerges in a context in which the cues are more robust than they would
have been in the expected, yet nonoccurring, order. An explanatory account of metathesis
must also account for this observation.
In the preceding discussion, I have illustrated a number of interrelated observations
concerning metathesis. First, the direction of change in metathesis can differ from
language to language. Thus, a similar sound combination can be realized in one order
in language A, but in the reverse order in language B. Second, for some sound combinations,
only one order of the sounds is generally observed crosslinguistically as the result
of metathesis, while either order seems just as likely to be attested for other combinations.
Third, the acoustic/auditory cues to the identification of the sequence resulting
from metathesis are frequently better, or optimized, compared to those of the expected,
yet nonoccurring, order. A successful model of metathesis should be able to provide
an explanatory account of each of these observations.
As I show in §§3 and 4, these patterns receive a straightforward account when we
consider two important factors: (i) the nature of the sounds involved, and (ii) the influence
of existing patterns in the language. To anticipate this discussion, I suggest that
for metathesis to occur, two conditions must be met. First, there must be indeterminacy
in the signal, with indeterminacy defined as a function of: (i) the listener’s experience
with the elements involved (e.g. sounds, sound sequences, morphemes, words, etc.),
and (ii) the quality of information in the signal as determined by the types of sounds
involved, the context in which they appear, the phonetic cues present, and so on. Second,
the order of elements opposite to that occurring in the input must be an attested structure
in the language. Indeterminacy sets the stage for metathesis, and the knowledge of the
sound patterns of one’s language influences how the signal is processed and, thus, the
210 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
order in which the sounds are parsed. To be specific, the order inferred from the signal
is consistent with that which occurs most frequently in the language. This proposal is
consistent with Fay’s (1966:88) earlier speculations regarding metathesis: ‘when listeners
hear speech that is expected to be in the native language, their perceptual identifications
are directed by their knowledge of sequential probabilities in the language as
well as by the acoustic stimulus’.
Support for this approach comes first from the metathesis patterns themselves, but
also from a large body of research in phonetics, phonology, historical linguistics, and
psycholinguistics. For example, at the heart of the proposed account is the assumption
that an individual’s knowledge of his/her language, including its patterns of usage, is
an effective predictor of the direction of metathesis. Support for this proposal comes
from extensive research demonstrating that listeners are sensitive to the frequency of
the words, sounds, and sound combinations of their language (see, among others, Bybee
1985, 2001, Frisch 1996, Frisch et al. 2000, Lindblom 1990, Luce 1986, Makashay
2001, Pierrehumbert 1994, Pitt & McQueen 1998, Saffran, Aslin & Newport 1996,
Saffran, Newport & Aslin 1996, Vitevitch & Luce 1999). This approach also builds
on earlier, primarily diachronic, studies of metathesis that point to the influence of a
language’s sound patterns on metathesis (Grammont 1933, Hock 1985, Ultan 1978).
The proposal that indeterminacy is a necessary prerequisite for metathesis draws on a
large body of research in phonetics, phonology, and historical linguistics showing the
importance of acoustic and auditory cues in shaping phonological systems (see, among
others, Bladon 1986, Blevins & Garrett 1998, Coˆte´ 1997, Fay 1966, Flemming 1995,
Hume 1998, Hume & Johnson 2001a,b,c, Jun 1995, Liljencrants & Lindblom 1972,
Lindblom 1990, Mielke 2002, 2003, Ohala 1981, 1993, 1996, Padgett 2001, Silverman
1995, Steriade 1995, 1997, 2001, Winters 2001, Wright 1996, 2001). A key aspect of
the proposal developed in this paper, however, is that neither the phonetic nature of the
sounds involved nor one’s familiarity with native sound sequences ALONE is sufficient to
provide a fully predictive account of metathesis. Rather, it is by taking into account
BOTH factors that we are able to understand why certain sound combinations tend to
undergo metathesis, why others are favored as the result of metathesis, why patterns
of metathesis differ across languages, and, importantly, why metathesis occurs in the
first place.
The data used in this study are drawn from a database of thirty-seven cases of
consonant/consonant metathesis, supplemented by cases of consonant/vowel metathesis
when relevant (note that some languages have more than one metathesis). While the
proposal in this paper is intended to extend to all types of metathesis, the emphasis is on
consonant/consonant metathesis due largely to the fact that while there is considerable
documentation regarding metatheses involving a consonant and vocoid (see e.g. Blevins
& Garrett 1998, Hume 1997b, McCarthy 2000), less is known about the general
patterns of consonant/consonant metathesis. Most of the cases discussed involve metatheses
that can be observed as (morpho)phonological alternations or as variable realizations
of a particular order of sounds in the synchronic grammar of a language. In some
instances metathesis is observed with great regularity throughout a language, while in
others metathesis may involve only a handful of words. I consider both types of data
as valid for the present study since my interest is in understanding the factors underlying
why and how metathesis occurs. Questions relating to how metathesis is to be formalized
within phonological theory or how a single occurrence of metathesis generalizes and
spreads throughout a language are all important, yet are not ones that I specifically
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 211
address here. I refer the reader to the references cited throughout this article for relevant
discussion of these issues (see also n. 2).
2. BACKGROUND. Speech processing plays a key role in the explanation of metathesis
developed in this article and, in this regard, two important factors that bear on the
processing of speech sounds figure centrally. The first relates to the knowledge that
we have of our native language, that is, our language experience. Processing speech
is facilitated by our experience with, among other things, the words, morphemes,
sounds, and sound sequences that make up our native language, as well as the frequency
with which these elements occur. The second factor concerns the quality of the information
that occurs in the speech signal as determined by the types of sounds involved,
the phonetic cues available for the identification of the sounds, and so forth. As I discuss
in §2.1 below, given the inescapable influence of one’s language knowledge, a sequence
of sounds with identical phonetic cues may be parsed differently by different listeners
(of different languages or even of the same language). Each of these points is developed
in greater detail below, thereby providing a basis for the discussion of metathesis to
follow.6
2.1. LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE AND LANGUAGE USAGE. How a particular auditory speech
signal is parsed by a hearer is influenced not only by the acoustic/auditory information
present, but also by the knowledge that the individual has of his or her language (Lindblom
1990, Luce 1986). Strong evidence in support of this view comes from psycholinguistic
research in first and second language acquisition, and speech and word
processing.
It is well established that infants are born with the ability to discriminate sounds that
contrast in their native language as well as those that do not (Aslin et al. 1981, Best
et al. 1988, Polka & Werker 1997, Streeter 1976, Trehub1976, Werker et al. 1981,
Werker & Tees 1984, 1999). Shortly thereafter, however, the effects of native-language
influence can be observed.7 For example, research shows that by four months of age,
infants being brought up in a monolingual environment are able to distinguish their
native language from a similar yet unfamiliar language (see Werker & Tees 1999). By
six months, infants show sensitivity to language-specific grammatical information (Shi
et al. 1998) and a preference for the prosodic system of their native language (Jusczyk
1997). The early influence of language experience on the parsing of the speech signal
is also observed by a decline in the infants’ ability to discriminate between sounds that
do not serve a contrastive function in their language. For example, the well-known
studies of Werker and colleagues (Werker et al. 1981, Werker & Tees 1984) reveal
that six-to-eight-month-old English-learning infants were able to distinguish place of
articulation contrasts in Hindi, just like Hindi adults. English-speaking adults, however,
had particular difficulty distinguishing the retroflex/dental place contrast. Of significance
is the finding that by ten to twelve months of age, English-learning infants were
no longer able to discriminate the nonnative contrast, thus behaving in a manner similar
6 It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the many principles involved in the processing of speech
sounds. I refer the reader to works such as Bladon 1986, Bregman 1990, and Johnson 1997 for in-depth
discussion of the principles of auditory and acoustic phonetics and how these principles relate to parsing
information in the speech signal.
7 Native-language influence may occur even in utero or shortly after birth. Research by Moon and colleagues
(1993) shows that infants as young as two days old display a preference for listening to their native
language, be it English or Spanish.
212 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
to English adults.8 The influence of language experience is also revealed by the infant’s
ability to distinguish familiar vs. unfamiliar elements within their own language. Jusczyk
and Aslin (1995) show that by seven and a half months of age, infants are able to
show a preference for familiar vs. unfamiliar words. Similarly, by nine months, infants
can discriminate speech sound sequences that occur more frequently from those that
occur less frequently within their own language (Jusczyk & Luce 1994).
It is important to note, however, that the decline in perceptual abilities due to nativelanguage
experience is not equally pronounced for all consonantal distinctions; infants
and adults have been shown to maintain their ability to discriminate some nonnative
phonetic contrasts (Best 1994, Best et al. 1988, Werker & Tees 1984). The results from
Best et al. 1998 reveal that the distinction between apical and lateral Zulu clicks remains
distinguishable to ten-to-twelve-month-old infants as well as to adults. These findings
are taken to indicate that the decline in perceptual sensitivities is limited to sounds that
are similar to the sounds of the infant’s native language (Best 1994). Thus, the evidence
from first language acquisition shows clearly that native-language familiarity enables
us to fine-tune our ability to process the words and sounds of our language. One
consequence of this fine-tuning for second language acquisition is that listeners are
more adept at perceiving sounds of their native language than those of a second language
acquired later in life (e.g. Dupoux et al. 1997, Francis & Nusbaum 2002, Polka &
Werker 1994).
Psycholinguistic research in speech and word processing also shows that the ability
to process speech is facilitated by a listener’s familiarity with various dimensions of
the native language’s phonological system. This includes the language’s sounds (Pitt &
Samuel 1990), phonotactics (Halle´ et al. 1998, Massaro & Cohen 1983, Pitt 1998,
Pitt & McQueen 1998), patterns of contrast (Dupoux et al. 1997, Harnsberger 2001,
Hume & Johnson 2003, Lahiri & Marslen-Wilson 1991, Otake et al. 1996), and syllable
structure (Cutler & Norris 1988, Pallier et al. 1993, Pitt et al. 1998, Treiman & Danis
1988). For example, listeners are biased to parse consonant clusters that are phonotactically
impermissible into permissible sequences (Halle´ et al. 1998, Massaro & Cohen
1983, Pitt 1998). Pitt (1998) found that an epenthetic schwa is more likely to be perceived
between the consonants of phonotactically illegal consonant clusters (e.g. [tl+]
N [tUl+]) than legal clusters (e.g. [tr+] N [tUr+]).
Phonological contrast also impacts speech processing by influencing the amount of
attention paid to the cues of sounds that occur in the language. Otake and colleagues
(1996) investigated the role of nasal place of articulation on the processing of place in
a following stop consonant by Japanese and Dutch subjects. They found that Japanese
listeners made use of place cues in a nasal consonant to obtain information about the
place of articulation of a following stop. Dutch listeners, in contrast, ignored place
information in a preceding nasal when processing the place identity of a following stop
consonant. As the authors point out, these findings reflect the different phonological
status accorded place of articulation in preconsonantal nasals in the two languages.
In Japanese, a nasal is obligatorily homorganic with a following stop (Vance 1987).
Conversely, while place assimilation does occur between a nasal-stop sequence in
Dutch, it does not have the obligatory status it has in Japanese; assimilation fails to
occur both within and across word and syllable boundaries. As the authors conclude,
‘place of articulation in a nasal is a reliable source of information about a following
8 Infants’ decline in sensitivity to native-language contrast for vowels can occur even earlier for vowels
(six months of age) than for consonants (Kuhl et al. 1992).
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 213
stop for Japanese listeners, and they make use of it; it is less reliable for Dutch listeners,
and it is not used’ (Otake et al. 1996:3841). Similarly, Hume and colleagues (1999)
tested the perceptual salience of stop place of articulation in the context CV for native
speakers of Korean and American English. The results revealed that listeners’ sensitivity
to information contained in the vowel transition following the consonant was significantly
greater for Korean listeners than it was for American English listeners. The
explanation offered for this finding relates to differences in the system of phonological
contrasts in each language. Unlike English, Korean contrasts tense, lax, and aspirated
stops, a contrast that is cued in part by the amplitude of aspiration (Kim 1994). Due
to these phonological contrasts, Korean listeners learn to focus greater attention on the
interval of time following the stop-release burst, that is, on the vowel transitions.
These studies underscore the important fact that since languages differ in terms of
their lexicons and phonologies, the influence of linguistic knowledge on the way that
a speech signal is parsed is necessarily language specific. We learn to focus our attention
on the phonetic cues that are important for distinguishing the meaningful elements of
our language while ignoring those that are not. This can then yield a considerable
degree of language specificity when it comes to processing speech sounds. Thus, when
presented with identical sound stimuli, speakers/hearers with different linguistic experiences
can process stimuli in different ways. The language-specific bias in speech processing
has important implications for understanding metathesis, as I discuss in more
detail in §§3 and 4, since it means that a signal may be parsed in different ways
depending on the native-language experience of the speaker/hearer.
Familiarity with the USAGE of elements that make up one’s language also influences
speech processing. How words are parsed is affected by factors such as their frequency
of occurrence, the number of neighboring words that are phonetically similar to them,
the predictability of the sequences of sounds in the word, and how familiar they are
to the listener (Frisch et al. 2000, Luce 1986, Luce & Pisoni 1998, Pitt & McQueen
1998, Pollack et al. 1959, Savin 1963, Vitevitch & Luce 1999). With respect to word
frequency, for example, the higher the frequency of a word, the higher its probability
of being correctly recognized (Luce 1986). Bybee (2001) claims that this is because
high-frequency words have increased lexical strength due to repetition; little-used items
will tend to fade in strength and grow more difficult to access. She also argues, based on
a range of experimental evidence, that type frequency (as opposed to token frequency) is
an important determinant of productivity (Baayen & Lieber 1991, Bybee 1985, 1995,
Moder 1992, Wang & Derwing 1994). Frequency of individual sounds and sound
sequences also impacts recognition in infants and adults (Bush 2001, Coleman &
Pierrehumbert 1997, Makashay 2001, Pierrehumbert 1994, Pitt & McQueen 1998,
Pitt & Samuel 1990, Saffran, Aslin & Newport 1996, Vitevitch & Luce 1999). The
relative acceptability of nonsense words with occurring and nonoccurring phonotactic
patterns has been shown to be based on the distribution of the patterns in the lexicon;
patterns with high type frequency are judged by listeners to be more acceptable (Bybee
2001, Pierrehumbert 1994, Vitevitch & Luce 1999).
2.2. THE NATURE OF SPEECH SOUNDS. As discussed in §2.1, how one parses an auditory
signal is strongly influenced by native-language experience. One’s ability to discriminate
sounds is also dependent on the speech sounds in question. Recall Best’s (1994)
conclusion that one reason why Zulu clicks remain distinguishable to older infants and
adults is because they are dissimilar to sounds in the native language; a decline in
perceptual sensitivities is limited to sounds that are similar to those of the native lan214
LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
guage. The findings also suggest that some speech sounds are simply more salient than
others. That is, the inherent quality of the phonetic cues of some sounds make them
easier to identify than others, with clicks being examples of the former and retroflex
stops being examples of the latter. This underscores the importance of the nature of
speech sounds to the parsing of an auditory signal, as I outline below.
2.3. PERCEPTUAL SALIENCE. As is evident, the presence of phonetic cues is crucial
for the identification of a speech sound. The better the cue package, the more information
there is about the sound, and the easier the sound is for a listener to identify (for
related discussion, see Steriade 1995, 1997, Wright 1996). Phonetic cues are determined
by two principal factors: the nature of the sound in question and the context in which
it occurs. Since sounds that differ articulatorily can have different acoustic/auditory
cues, the precise nature of the sound in question is crucial.
Also critical to determining the quality and quantity of a sound’s phonetic cues is
context, such as position in a word or phrase, neighboring sounds, prosodic prominence,
and so on. Context can determine whether a cue is present or absent, as well as the
degree to which a particular cue is manifested. Consider burst release in stops, for
example. Prevocalically, the burst release of a stop is always present, regardless of
language. Phrase-finally, on the other hand, a stop may or may not be released, the
choice of which is determined on a language-by-language basis. In Korean, for example,
stops are unreleased in this position, while in English the burst is optional. Context
can also determine the degree to which a particular cue is present. A cue may be
diminished as a consequence of masking from adjacent sounds (Byrd 1994). For example,
the release burst of a stop may be masked by the frication of a following consonant,
or the frication of [h] may be masked by that of an adjacent fricative (Mielke 2003).
The occurrence of a sound in an unstressed, as opposed to stressed, syllable can also
result in weak cues due to, among other factors, compressed duration of formant transitions
and segment-internal cues. Compressed duration may also be relevant to the
occurrence of a consonant in preconsonantal, as opposed to word-final, position. Beckman
and Edwards (1990), for example, found that segments in word-final position are
generally longer than those in word-medial position, with lengthening being even more
evident at the end of an intonational phrase. If greater duration is at issue, it is reasonable
to assume that a consonant’s perceptual cues carry more information and are thus more
salient in word-final than in word-medial coda position.
As detailed in Wright 1996, some sounds are more dependent than others on contextual
cues to their identification. To illustrate, compare the perceptual cues to place and
manner of articulation for stops and fricatives.
(11) Perceptual cues to obstruent stops
TYPE CUE SEGMENT-INTERNAL OR CONTEXTUAL CUE
manner: silence internal
release burst contextual: consonant release
transition duration contextual: VC, CV transitions
place: F2 transition contextual: VC, CV transitions
burst spectrum contextual: consonant release
As shown in 11, stop consonants are heavily dependent on contextual cues for their
identification, in particular, release burst and vowel formant transitions. Note that place
of articulation is entirely dependent on contextual cues. As Blumstein and Stevens
(1979) point out, when both vowel transition and burst are present, the spectral characteristics
for a particular place of articulation are enhanced relative to the characteristics
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 215
that exist for either one of the components separately. Further, identification of place
of articulation is less accurate in unreleased stop consonants than in released ones
(Blumstein & Stevens 1979, Halle et al. 1957, Male´cot 1956, Stevens & Blumstein
1978, Wang 1959). Since release bursts are always present for stop consonants at the
onset to a vowel, prevocalic position is favorable for the perceptibility of a stop. In
preconsonantal position, in contrast, bursts are frequently lacking. Prevocalic position
is also favored for stops since CV transitions provide better cues than VC transitions
(Fujimura et al. 1978). Further, since, from an auditory perspective, auditory nerve
fibers show a greater response at the onset of a stimulus signal than at the offset, a
prevocalic stop is expected to be more salient than a postvocalic one (Bladon 1986,
Mielke 2002, Wright 1996, though see Steriade 1995 on retroflexion).
Compared to stop consonants, fricatives have stronger internal cues to both place
and manner of articulation, as displayed in 12. They are therefore less dependent on
context for information regarding their identity and, as a result, they generally fare
better in poorer contexts (Wright 1996).
(12) Perceptual cues to fricatives
TYPE CUE SEGMENT-INTERNAL OR CONTEXTUAL CUE
manner: frication noise internal
noise duration internal
place: frication spectrum internal
frication amplitude internal
F2 transition contextual: VC, CV transitions
Context can also provide modulation in the signal, thus facilitating the identification
of speech sounds. Kawasaki (1982) and Ohala (e.g. 1992, 1993) propose that sharper
changes in the speech signal serve to increase the salience of cues in the portion of the
signal where the modulation takes place: the greater the magnitude of the modulation,
the better a given signal is detected. Consequently, larger modulations survive better
than smaller ones since, as Kawasaki points out, if two sounds in a sequence are
acoustically and auditorily similar, they would be subject to confusion.
The acoustic and auditory cues of a given speech sound are thus determined both
by the nature of the sound in question and by the context in which it appears. As a
result, two speech sounds occurring in exactly the same environment, produced in an
identical manner by speakers with identical vocal tracts, can be expected to generate
the same acoustic and auditory cues. Yet, as already noted, we are all familiar with
some language and, as Lindblom (1990:408) states, ‘if we know a certain language,
we can not help imposing that knowledge on the signal’. We can therefore conclude
that how an individual parses an auditory signal is a function of the quality of the speech
sounds involved as well as, importantly, the individual’s native-language experience.
2.4. SUMMARY. A key factor influencing how speech is processed is the knowledge
that an individual has of his or her language. This naturally includes familiarity with
the elements that make up the language as well as their patterns of usage, including
frequency of occurrence. Speech processing is also dependent on the nature of the
sounds involved and the context in which the sounds occur. As I show, each of these
factors plays a key role in explaining observed patterns of metathesis.
3. INDETERMINACY. As just discussed, the way that a speech signal is parsed is
strongly influenced by one’s native language. Particularly important for our understanding
of metathesis is the finding that this influence is strongest when information specify216
LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
ing a sound or sound sequence is indeterminate (Pitt & McQueen 1998).9 Indeterminacy
in this context relates to one’s ability to parse a given speech signal which, as we have
seen, is determined both by the listener’s native-language experience and by the nature
of the speech sounds involved. I define indeterminacy concerning the order of speech
sounds in 13:
(13) INDETERMINACY OF ORDER describes a state in which there is insufficient
information concerning the linear ordering of the elements involved. Indeterminacy
is a function of two factors:
a. the listener’s experience with the elements involved (e.g. sounds, sound
sequences, morphemes, words, etc.);
b. the quality of information occurring in the speech signal (e.g. the types
of sounds involved, the context in which the sounds occur, the phonetic
cues available, etc.).
When there is indeterminacy, a listener is biased to parse the signal in a manner
consistent with the attested patterns of his/her language. Pitt and McQueen (1998), for
example, found that the transitional probabilities of voiceless alveolar and postalveolar
fricatives at the end of nonwords influenced listeners’ identification of an ambiguous
fricative as well as that of the following stop consonant. This is consistent with the
findings of Vitevitch and Luce (1999), which reveal segment and sound sequence
probabilities to be most influential when listeners are presented with unfamiliar words.
Recognition of familiar words, on the other hand, tends to be influenced more by
competition with similar sounding words in the language, rather than by sublexical
(e.g. phonotactic) patterns. Indeterminacy thus forces the listener to rely on language
experience to parse the signal.
Significantly, similar conclusions can be drawn regarding the role of indeterminacy
in the identification of linear order. In Broadbent and Ladefoged’s (1959) investigation
into the perception of order, they found that experience with sounds and sound sequences
facilitates identification of the order in which sounds occur. Warren (1982:
119) notes that ‘perception of speech and music seems to involve initial recognition
of groupings consisting of several sounds. If required, component sounds and their
orders may be inferred from these familiar sequences, even though they cannot be
perceived directly’ (see also Makashay 2001 on the perception of obstruent order in
English).
These studies provide insight into why metathesis occurs and why languages differ
with regard to the sounds that undergo metathesis and the sequences that emerge as a
result. First, a listener makes use of his/her knowledge of native-language patterns to
facilitate the identification of the order of sounds. Second, this influence is strongest
when information about ordering is indeterminate, in which case the order is inferred.
It is thus reasonable to conclude that for metathesis to occur, there must be indeterminacy
in the speech signal (Fay 1966). Further, how the signal is parsed depends on the
9 John Ohala (e.g. 1981, 1993) has pointed to the importance of indeterminacy (or, in his terms, AMBIGUITY)
as a key factor in a listener’s misapprehension of the speech signal, the basis of sound change in his view.
The ideas in this article build on his important work in this area. Importantly, however, my approach differs
in that an individual’s knowledge of the elements of his/her language and their usage are given a central
role. Thus, in my view, how a listener interprets, or parses, a speech signal is language specific rather than
universal, as Ohala assumes.
Blevins and Garrett (1998) and Steriade (2001) also note that indeterminacy in the input is involved in
metathesis (they use the term ambiguity). They follow Ohala’s approach and, consequently, language usage
does not play a key role in their proposals.
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 217
listener’s native-language experience; specifically, the sequence resulting from metathesis
corresponds to one with which the listener has had the most experience.
The impact of native-language familiarity on speech processing is strongly supported
by crosslinguistic research, which in turn gives us insight into some of the metathesis
patterns seen in §1. For example, Mielke’s 2003 study of the perception of [h] by
listeners with different native-language backgrounds underscores language specificity
in processing speech. His results show that in both prevocalic and postvocalic position,
/h/ is significantly more perceptible to Turkish and Arabic listeners than to English
and French subjects (p 0.001). Further, prevocalic /h/ is significantly more perceptible
to English subjects than to French subjects (p 0.009). These results reflect the sound
patterns in the languages and, consequently, the degree of familiarity that the listeners
have with the sequences in question. Turkish and Arabic listeners have the highest
degree of familiarity with sequences involving /h/ given that the glottal occurs both
before and after consonants in those languages. English listeners have less experience
in this regard since /h/ is limited to prevocalic position, while French subjects are least
familiar since /h/ does not occur in the language at all.
Mielke’s results concerning the crosslinguistic perception of /h/ provide insight into
observed patterns of metathesis involving glottal consonants. In some languages, as
was shown for Hungarian and Cebuano, the temporal organization of an intervocalic
glottal/consonant input is resolved with the glottal being realized in C2 position. In
Pawnee and Basaa, however, the mirror-image is found. Of particular interest is the
observation that the input order in each case is a nonoccurring or infrequent sequence
in the language. I would suggest that the listener’s sensitivity to the sequence is weak
in these cases due to the listener’s low degree of familiarity with the input. Listeners
learn to focus attention on meaningful cues in the signal, and to ignore others. Consequently,
if the order of sounds in the input is unfamiliar to the listener, he/she may not
be tuned to the cues that can aid in identifying the sound combination. We then correctly
predict that listeners with different native-language backgrounds will process sound
combinations differently if in one language the sequence occurs while in the other it does
not. Yet, familiarity need not be considered all or none. Consistent with psycholinguistic
studies, the listener is biased to parse the signal in a manner consistent with the most
robust or frequent pattern in cases in which both orders of a given sequence occur in
a language. This claim is developed in more detail in §4.
3.1. QUALITY OF INFORMATION IN THE SPEECH SIGNAL. That indeterminacy is a factor
in metathesis is also evidenced by observations concerning the types of sounds that
metathesize. They fall into two general, yet overlapping, categories. The first is characterized
by diminished perceptual salience, while the second involves temporal resolution.
The defining phonetic characteristics of the sounds in these two categories are
key sources of indeterminacy in the temporal organization of the sounds in question.10
3.2. DIMINISHED PERCEPTUAL SALIENCE. Indeterminate sound sequences resulting
from diminished perceptual salience involve either similar sounds and/or those where
the phonetic cues to the identification of at least one of the sounds is masked.
10 My focus regarding indeterminacy relates to an auditory signal, though I speculate that indeterminacy
in a visual signal could also result in parsing symbols in a way other than is presented. Factors contributing
to indeterminacy in a visual domain include, among others, reading rate, visual quality of the text, visual
capabilities of the reader, the reader’s familiarity with the word or sound sequence, and so on.
218 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
I begin with similarity. Since modulation in the speech signal contributes to the
salience of a sound’s phonetic cues and hence to the identification of the sound itself
(Kawasaki 1982, Ohala 1992, 1993), acoustic/auditory similarity between sounds can
have the effect of diminishing the degree of distinctiveness of the sounds, thereby
making them and their order less easily identifiable (Hume 1998).
That acoustic/auditory similarity is an important conditioning factor in metathesis
comes from the observation that of the thirty-seven cases of consonant/consonant metathesis
examined in this study, 35% involve sounds that are highly similar acoustically
and auditorily. In the majority of cases, the two sounds agree in sonorancy, differing
only in place and/or manner. The importance of shared values for sonorancy in perceived
similarity of sounds is consistent with Mohr and Wang’s (1968) study of consonant
similarity in English. Their findings reveal that the pairs of consonants judged to be
most similar were those that shared the major class feature [sonorant], differing only
in the value for voicing, place, or continuancy. Fay (1966) also found temporal discrimination
between segments to be poorest in sequences of two nasals or two liquids, a
finding he attributes in part to similarity in the resonant frequencies of the sounds in
each pair.
Metathesis involving two sonorant consonants is not uncommon, being attested in
Georgian (Butskhrikidze & van de Weijer 2001, Hewitt 1995), Chawchila (Newman
1944; see related discussion in Stonham 1990), Old Spanish (5a), Deg (Crouch 1994,
Hume 1997b), Aymara (Davidson 1977), and Turkana (Dimmendaal 1983), among
other languages. Ordering reversals involving two fricatives occur in, for example,
Hixkaraya (14), and involving two stops in Kui (Winfield 1928), Kuvi (Israel 1979),
Mokilese (Harrison 1976), and Classical Greek (Lejeune 1972). Homorganicity is a
condition on metathesis in Modern Hebrew (15) and Udi (6), among others. Identity
in place is also crucial in Rendille (Heine 1976, 1978, Hume 1998, Oomen 1981, Sim
1981, Zaborsky 1986) and Bedouin Arabic (Al-Mozainy 1981, Al-Mozainy et al. 1985).
In both cases, metathesis involving a pharyngeal consonant is restricted to words in
which the consonant is adjacent to a pharyngeal vowel. Metathesis in Turkana is especially
interesting since conditions on similarity extend beyond the consonants involved:
in addition to the metathesizing sounds having the same value of sonorancy, the relevant
consonants must also be adjacent to identical vowels, as in [√akεmεra] [√akεrεma]
‘mole’, [√ikwa√:r:m:ka] [√ikwa√:m:r:ka] ‘kind of tree’ (Dimmendaal 1983).
Diminished perceptual distinctiveness can also result from the masking of meaningful
phonetic cues that listeners could use to identify the sounds involved. Given the discussion
in §2.3 concerning the dependence of stop consonants on contextual cues for the
identification of place and manner, it is not surprising that over one-third of the
consonant/consonant metathesis cases examined involve a stop consonant. Recall that
stop consonants are heavily dependent on release burst and vowel formant transitions
as cues to their place and manner. In fact, place is entirely dependent on these contextual
cues. Since release bursts are always present for stop consonants at the onset to a
vowel, prevocalic position is a favorable position for the perceptibility of a stop. In
preconsonantal position, in contrast, bursts are frequently masked. The observation that
a stop/consonant sequence is reordered so that the stop emerges instead before a vowel
is thus to be expected. Representative cases occur in Elmolo (9), Fur (Jakobi 1990,
Mielke & Hume 2001), Modern Hebrew (15), Oromo (Lloret-Romanyach 1988), Sidamo
(10), and Udi (6). Given the importance of vowel transitions for the identification
of a stop’s place of articulation, the patterns observed in Faroese (7) and Lithuanian
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 219
(8) are also unremarkable. Recall that the stop is expected to be sandwiched between
two consonants, yet surfaces adjacent to a vowel in the output. In each of these cases, the
masking of important phonetic cues to the manner and especially place of articulation of
a stop consonant contributes to indeterminacy in the signal, thus creating a favorable
context for metathesis to occur.
3.3. TEMPORAL RESOLUTION. Blevins and Garrett (1998) observe that glottals, liquids,
and glides are commonly involved in metathesis. While their study focuses largely on
consonant/vowel metathesis, their claim is well supported by data from cases of
consonant/consonant metathesis. At least one of the consonants is glottal in Balangao
(1), Basaa (4), Cebuano (Bunye & Yap 1971, Wolff 1972), Cherokee (Foley 1980),
Estonian (Kiparsky 1967), Hanunoo (Conklin 1953, Mielke & Hume 2001), Harari
(Leslau 1963, Semiloff-Zelasko 1973), Hixkaryana (14), Hungarian (2), Mandaic (Macuch
1965, Malone 1971, 1985), Pawnee (3), and Twana (Semiloff-Zelasko 1973). A
glide metathesizes with a consonant in Chawchila (Newman 1944), Cherokee (Foley
1980), Kota (Emeneau 1967, 1970, Semiloff-Zelasko 1973), and Yagua (Powlison
1962, Semiloff-Zelasko 1973). A liquid is involved in Chawchila (Newman 1944), Deg
(Crouch 1994, Hume 1997a), Elmolo (9), Gidole (Black 1974), Hungarian (2), Mandaic
(Macuch 1965, Malone 1971, 1985), Pawnee (3), and Rendille (Heine 1976, 1978,
Hume 1998, Oomen 1981, Sim 1981, Zaborsky 1986), among others. Note that in some
cases more than one type of consonant is involved. Drawing on Ohala’s research on
dissimilation, Blevins and Garrett’s account incorporates the insight that glottals, liquids,
and glides have cues of relatively long duration or, as Ohala (1993:251) calls
them, ‘stretched out’ features. The burst release of a stop is a good example of a cue
that would NOT fit in this category. Since stretched out cues tend to extend over a
domain which may encompass adjacent sounds, it can result in the overlap of important
phonetic cues, potentially creating indeterminacy about the onset and offset of the
sounds involved. An example of this type of overlap can be seen in Figure 1 in the
spectrogram of an /h/-vocoid cluster, drawn from the ViC corpus of spontaneous American
English speech.11 Both the vocoid and glottal fricative have stretched out features
.... i.n.igng ho ... ho...
FIGURE 1. Spectrogram of a portion of the phrase ‘being home’, with the overlapping acoustic cues for the
glottal fricative and vowel encircled.
11 http://vic.psy.ohio-state.edu/
220 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
(frication for /h/ and formant structure for the vocoid), which results in the overlapping
of acoustic cues.
Unlike the cases of metathesis conditioned by cue masking or acoustic/auditory
similarity, diminished perceptual salience seems less of an issue in the case of the
glottal fricative and vocoid in Fig. 1. Cues to both segment types are present in the
signal (frication on the part of /h/, and formant structure for the vocoid). Furthermore,
the cues are qualitatively different. In cases of this type, indeterminacy is an issue of
temporal resolution relating to the onset and offset of the respective consonants.12
If we are on the right track in assuming that metatheses conditioned by lack of
temporal resolution involve sounds with qualitatively different cues, this would underscore
once again the importance of context in understanding the relevant conditions
underlying the indeterminacy. For example, despite the fact that /h/ is produced with
a stretched out feature, the case of Hixkaryana ‘h fricative’ metathesis seen in 14
may be best classified under the category of diminished cue perceptibility, given that
both sound types exploit frication as the key perceptual cue to their identification. In
this language, metathesis occurs when a morpheme-final /s/ or / / would be expected
to be followed by morpheme-initial /h/ due to vowel loss. (The bilabial fricative, the
only other fricative in the language, does not cooccur with /h/.)
(14) Hixkaryana (Derbyshire 1979, 1985)
INPUT SURFACE EXPECTED ORDER GLOSS
ahosé-hira ahohséra *ahoshéra ‘not catching it’
w-ama-+e-haka wamah+aka *wama+haka ‘let me cut it down’
This, of course, does not rule out the possibility that more than one factor may
contribute to indeterminacy in the signal. In Modern Hebrew and Udi metatheses, for
example, both sounds are obstruents and the burst release of the stop would be potentially
masked in the input. In Chawchila and Old Spanish nasal/liquid metathesis, both
consonants are sonorants, and of these, the liquid can be said to have a stretched out
cue. Though many more cases could be cited, the point is that the less easily identifiable
the sounds and their order are, the greater the possibility that the sequence will be
inferred based on the listener’s knowledge of the elements of his/her language. Of
course, indeterminacy will be even greater when, in addition, the elements in the signal
(e.g. sound sequences, words) are less familiar to the listener.
3.4. SUMMARY. In the preceding discussion I have argued that indeterminacy in the
speech signal provides a favorable context for metathesis to occur. A listener’s experience
with the elements heard, as well as the nature of the sounds involved, contributes
to his or her ability to extract information regarding the order of the sounds from the
signal.
4. ATTESTATION. In this section, I focus on the sequences resulting from metathesis.
As I show, native sound patterns exert a strong influence on the direction of metathesis.
12 Temporal indeterminacy between sounds in which the relevant cues are qualitatively different may
relate to the concept of auditory-stream segregation (Bregman 1990). This refers to the phenomenon whereby
separate auditory continua or streams are created among similar auditory cues and remain perceptually
separated without temporal cross-linking (see Warren 1982 for related discussion). Bregman and Campbell
(1971) found auditory-stream segregation for sequences of six tones made up of two clusters of three lowfrequency
and three high-frequency tones. Their findings suggest that subjects had more difficulty identifying
the order of tones across clusters than within a cluster.
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 221
In fact, a second condition on metathesis is that the structure resulting from metathesis
be attested in the language. As outlined in §3, this proposal is strongly supported by
experimental studies investigating the perception of order. Crucially, it is also supported
by observed patterns of metathesis. It is worth noting that this approach is consistent
to an extent with earlier proposals suggesting that by metathesis, uncommon language
structures are replaced by more common ones (see e.g. Grammont 1933, Ultan 1978,
Hock 1985). Importantly for the proposal developed here, however, the (un)commonness
of a given structure is determined on a language-specific basis.13
Attested cases of metathesis strongly support this conclusion. To my knowledge, the
output of metathesis consistently conforms to an existing structure in the language.
Note, however, that the level of generalization over which the relevant structure is
defined may differ. This is consistent with Dell and colleagues’ claim that ‘patterns in
language occur at many levels of generality and . . . the processing system is sensitive
to all of these levels . . . . The claim that language processing is sensitive to patterns
at many levels of generality is hardly controversial’ (Dell et al. 2000:1356). With respect
to metathesis, the relevant structure may be defined in terms of specific qualities of
sounds or be larger in scope. In Lithuanian and Faroese, for example, the relevant
generalization involves stops and coronal fricatives (Hume & Seo 2003), while in
Mutsun the specific sequence involving /k/ and /m/ is relevant (see 16). In Kuvi, by
contrast, the level of generalization refers both to the place of articulation of the consonant
and, more generally, to the classes of consonants and vowels (alternatively defined
as the prosodic level). The direction of metathesis is thus constrained by the sound
system of the language in question. While this finding may not seem surprising, it is
significant in that it means that the direction of metathesis is not arbitrary. It also
suggests that, in principle, any order of two segments is a potential output of metathesis,
provided that the reordered sequence forms an attested structure in the language.
The view just outlined makes strong predictions about what a preferred metathesis
output can be. When only a single order of some combination of sounds is attested in
a language, the predicted output will be consistent with that order. For example, in a
language with the sequence [VhCV] but not [VChV], a listener will be biased to parse
a signal containing a temporally ambiguous intervocalic consonant/glottal combination
as [VhCV]. Thus, if metathesis occurs, the preferred output will be [VhCV], as in
Pawnee (3) and Basaa (4). Conversely, with only [VChV] as the attested order, the
prediction is that a speech signal with an intervocalic consonant/glottal combination
will be parsed as [VChV], as in Balangao (1), Hungarian (2), and Cebuano (Wolff
1972). Similar observations hold for many other languages with metathesis: only a
single order of a given sequence of sounds is attested and this corresponds to the order
observed as the result of metathesis (e.g. Hanunoo, Hixkaryana, Lithuanian, Faroese,
Udi, Sidamo, Elmolo, Georgian, Rendille, and Chawchila).
This approach also makes clear predictions regarding the preferred sequence when
both orders of a combination of sounds are attested in the language. Drawing on the
finding that listeners are sensitive to the transitional probabilities of sounds in their
13 One might take this a step further and suggest that markedness is language specific, a position I support.
For new evidence in favor of this view, see Hume & Tserdanelis 2002 and Hume 2002, 2003.
222 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
language, the prediction is that when both sequences are attested in a language, the
listener will be biased toward the most robust sequence, that is, the one with the highest
frequency. The more a sequence occurs, the more the speaker/hearer is exposed to it
and the more fine-tuned the processing system becomes with regard to that sequence.
Evidence for this claim comes from metathesis in, among other languages, Balangao,
Cebuano, Modern Hebrew, Mutsun, and Kuvi.14
Recall from 1 that in Balangao metathesis, the expected ordering of a glottal [≈, h]
before a nasal or oral plosive is reversed, thus yielding a plosive-glottal output (Shetler
1976), for example, /pRhéd-én/ [pRdhén] *[pRhdén] ‘allow, accept’, /CV-≈éném/ [≈én≈ém]
*[≈é≈ném] ‘six each’. While glottals are not strictly excluded from preconsonantal position,
the overwhelming tendency is for them to occur prevocalically, as in [heet], [manhamal],
[lehet], [qaho], and [bRt≈ont]. Preconsonantal glottals, however, are highly
restricted, occurring only at morpheme boundaries (e.g. /mano≈-na/ [mano≈na]
‘chicken, his’), as geminates (e.g. [ahhahayat] ‘just returned home’), or in reduplicated
forms (e.g. [pahpah] ‘hit to knock something down’, [pa≈pa≈] ‘touch, as of sugar, and
then touch something else, leaving some’).
In the Cebu City dialect of Cebuano, the sequences /≈C/ and /hC/ are also realized
as [C≈] and [Ch] (e.g. /ka´≈un-a/ [kan≈a] ‘eat it’, /luhu´d-an/ [ludhan] ‘kneel on’). In
other dialects, the glottal remains in preconsonantal position. As predicted, the shift
observed in the Cebu City language variety is consistent with observed patterns in the
dialect. In Wolff’s (1972) lexicon of approximately 7,500 words, preconsonantal [≈]
occurs in only eight lexical items, and [h] occurs in none. The preconsonantal glottal
fricative is rather common morpheme-internally, occurring in 132 forms, but the glottal
stop is rare in this position. The preconsonantal glottal stop does frequently occur in
polymorphemic words, however (John Wolff, p.c.). Thus, the shift of the glottal from
preconsonantal to postconsonantal position is consistent with the most robust glottal/
consonant pattern in the dialect.
The direction of change observed in the well-known metathesis of Modern Hebrew
is also consistent with this approach. In the language, binyan 5 of perfective verbs
typically has the form [hit]-verb, as shown in 15a (the prefix /t/ agrees in voicing with
an adjacent obstruent); /h-/ is a perfective prefix, /-t-/ is the binyan 5 morpheme, and
/i/ is epenthetic (Bat-El 1989, 1992). When the stem-initial consonant is a strident
coronal (/c, s, z, /), however, the /t/ of the prefix occurs to its right, as in 15b(Bat-
El 1988, 1989). While the sequence [t] [strident] occurs in the language, Bat-El
(1988, p.c.) reports that it is considerably less common than the opposite order; it is
restricted to tautomorphemic forms such as [hi-tsis] ‘he fermented’ and nonverbal forms
like [t+uva] ‘reply’.
14 I am basing my claims regarding the robustness of a given sequence in each of the languages discussed
in this section on the state of the language at the present time (or at the time the description of the language
was written). An obvious critique of this methodology is that the current state of the language may not be
identical to the way it was when metathesis was first triggered in the system. Admittedly, this is not the
ideal situation but one must make do with the resources available. This should not undermine the validity
of the claims being made for any of the languages, however, given the robustness of each of the patterns
reported.
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 223
(15) Modern Hebrew
INPUT SURFACE GLOSS
a. hi-t-nakem hitnakem ‘he took revenge’
hi-t-raxec hitraxec ‘he washed himself’
hi-t-balet hidbalet ‘he became prominent’
hi-t-darder hiddarder ‘he declined, rolled down’
hi-t-kabel hitkabel ‘it was accepted’
b. hi-t-sader histader ‘he got organized’
hi-t-zaken hizdaken ‘he grew old’
hi-t-calem hictalem ‘he took pictures of himself’
hi-t-+amer hi+tamer ‘he preserved himself’
The influence of native-language patterns on metathesis can also be heard in some
varieties of American English in the variable pronunciation of t-l in the word chipotle,
the Latin American name for a particular kind of pepper and, recently, for a chain of
Mexican restaurants. Both orders of the final two consonants can be heard, even in the
speech of the same American English speaker: chipotle (the original order) or chipolte
(the innovative order). This pattern is consistent with the claims made in this paper.
The two sounds involved are archetypical ‘metathesis sounds’ and thus contribute to
indeterminacy: /t/ with perceptually vulnerable cues and /l/ with stretched out features.
Notice also that in the original form of the word, chipotle, the stop occurs in preconsonantal
position, a perceptually weak context for a stop. Another factor that may contribute
to indeterminacy is unfamiliarity with the borrowed word. Recall that sound sequence
probabilities are most influential when listeners are presented with unfamiliar words
(Vitevitch & Luce 1999). With indeterminacy, the order of sounds is inferred based
on experience, with the bias towards the most robust order. As predicted, although both
/tl/ and /lt/ occur intervocalically in English, an examination of their text frequencies
in the online MRC Psycholinguistic database of English (Wilson 1988) reveals that
/tl/, the original form, occurs in sixty-seven words, while the innovative /lt/ sequence
occurs in 356 words.15
In the examples just presented, the sequence of sounds resulting from metathesis not
only corresponds to the more frequent order of some combination of sounds, but the
sequence also arguably has more salient acoustic/auditory cues than the original order.
In each case a stop or glottal consonant surfaces in prevocalic rather than preconsonantal
position, which, all else being equal, can be deemed the more perceptually favorable
context. The observation that the sequences that emerge by metathesis are frequently
better perceptually than their unmetathesized counterparts should not be surprising since
clusters with better cues are generally more stable, thus occurring in more lexical entries
in a language than clusters with poorer cues (Makashay 2001).
Crucial for the approach to metathesis developed in this paper, however, is the view
that speech processing is not universal; listeners with different language experiences
may parse the same sequence of sounds in different ways. Thus, we would expect to
find so-called ‘non-optimal’ sequences resulting from metathesis as well. Metathesis
in Mutsun and Kuvi serves to illustrate.
Metathesis in the Costanoan language Mutsun, as shown in 16, involves the commonly
occurring nominal thematic plural suffix, which has two alternants: [-mak] and
[-kma] (Okrand 1977).
15 The MRC Database is a machine-usable dictionary containing over 150,000 words with up to twentysix
linguistic and psycholinguistic attributes (e.g. pronunciation, part of speech, word frequency; Wilson
1988).
224 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
(16) Mutsun
ru k ru k-mak ‘string’
hu s hu s-mak ‘nose’
wimmah wimmah-mak ‘wing’
kahhay kahhay-mak ‘head louse’
≈innis ≈innis-mak ‘son’
rukka rukka-kma ‘house’
t+iri t+iri-kma ‘paternal aunt’
rumme rumme-kma ‘rivulet’
sinni sinni-kma ‘child’
relo relo-kma ‘clock’
huttu huttu-kma ‘belly’
sipruna sipruna-kma ‘tule root’
The locative suffix displays a similar pattern, with the alternants [-tak] and [-tka].
(17) ≈urkan ≈urkan-tak ‘mortar’
lo t lo t-tak ‘mud’
pappel pappel-tak ‘paper’
pire pire-tka ‘world, land’
rukka rukka-tka ‘house’
si si -tka ‘water’
pa rani pa rani-tka ‘hill’
In both the nominal thematic and locative suffixes, the final consonant and vowel
metathesize; the CCV alternant occurs after vowel-final stems while the CVC alternant
occurs after consonant-final stems. By comparing the two morphemes in 16 and 17, it
can be seen that a further change is involved in the nominal thematic suffix. Not only
do the variants differ with regard to whether they end in an open or closed syllable,
but the linear ordering of the consonants changes as well: in the allomorph [-kma], [k]
precedes [m], while in [-mak], [m] precedes [k]. If we were to follow the pattern of
the locative [Ctak, Vtka], we would expect the nominal thematic suffixes to be [Cmak,
*Vmka]. Instead, we find [Cmak, Vkma].
There is no absolute prohibition against clusters consisting of nasals and heterorganic
obstruents in the language (e.g. [≈am+i] ‘so that’, [namti] ‘to hear’, [janpu] ‘to praise
oneself’), although some are more common than others. Clusters of [mk] are very rare,
occurring in only a few words including [omkon] ‘maggot’ and [hemkon] ‘to set (sun)’.
The opposite order [km], however, is attested in many words in addition to those seen
in 16 (e.g. [sukmu] ‘smokes, verb’, [ya kmun] ‘in the east’, [wakmenne] ‘grandmother’).
These findings are consistent with the view that the direction of change in
metathesis is influenced by the patterns of usage in the language.
Mutsun labial/velar metathesis is of particular interest since it provides a case opposite
to what would be expected from a strictly phonetic cue-based approach (cf. Hume
1998, 2001, Steriade 2001). Recall from §2.3 that the most favorable position for a
stop consonant is before a vowel, since auditory nerve fibers show a greater response
in this position, CV transitions provide better cues than VC transitions, and the release
burst of the stop is consistently present. Yet, in Mutsun metathesis, unlike cases such
as Sidamo, Elmolo, and others, the stop surfaces preconsonantally. Accounting for
these differences is straightforward when the sound patterns of each language are taken
into account. In Sidamo, for example, sequences of V[stop][nasal]V are nonoccurring,
while in Mutsun they are common. Conversely, sequences of V[nasal][stop]V are robust
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 225
in Sidamo, while restricted in Mutsun. This strongly suggests that the goal of metathesis
is not to improve the overall psychoacoustic (i.e. universal) cues of a sequence, but,
rather, conforming to the patterns of usage of a given language is key.
Consider next metathesis in the Dravidian language Kuvi, where the sequence
CVCCV is realized as CCVCV (Israel 1979); metathesis thus results in a change in
the prosodic structure of words. Krishnamurti (1978) points out that this metathesis
goes back at least two millennia and affected languages of the south central branch of
Dravidian including Telugu, Gondi, Konda, Kui, Kuvi, Pengo, and Manda. The change
is most widely attested in Kui (ninety-eight forms) and Kuvi (fifty-nine forms). (In
some of these forms, the initial consonant was also deleted.) Krishnamurti notes that
there are an additional nineteen forms in Kui and twenty-three in Kuvi with lexical
free variation, which he states represents subdialectal variation within that language.
According to Krishnamurti the sound change spread gradually, lexically and geographically,
over the centuries and continues to spread in Kui and Kuvi. In several words
that underwent metathesis the effects persist as morphophonemic alternations, or as
variable realizations of a word, as in the Kuvi forms shown in 18. I focus my discussion
on Kuvi primarily because metathesis continues to affect new words in the language,
though similar conclusions can be assumed to hold for Kui (and the other languages
affected).
(18) Kuvi
doıva dıova ‘basket’
paıka pıaka ‘armpit’
pa≈va p≈ava ‘firstborn’
mu≈ka m≈uka ‘urine’
INPUT SURFACE EXPECTED ORDER GLOSS
o¯ri-ka ro¯ka *[ o¯rka] ‘ropes’
mı¯≈u-ka m≈ı¯ka *[mı¯≈ka] ‘fish’
pe¯≈u-ka p≈e¯ka *[pe¯≈ka] ‘lice’ lice [pl.] [pl. de la] louse
Kuvi metathesis is of particular interest since the structure resulting from metathesis
would appear to be less optimal than the nonmetathesized structure. Of relevance is
the observation that the consonant involved in metathesis is a sonorant apical (dental/
alveolar: /n r l/; retroflex: /≈ ı/).16 Steriade (1995) argues that the most salient cue to
apicality is in the V-C transition (specifically the locus of F3) and that postvocalic
position is more favorable than prevocalic position for the perception of apicals. Phonological
evidence supporting this claim comes from languages in which place neutralization
involving apicals occurs in prevocalic position but place is preserved in postvocalic
position where the phonetic cues are more salient. The observation that Kuvi metathesis
involves the shift of an apical from postvocalic to postconsonantal, prevocalic position
16 In other languages, the context has been generalized to include all apicals (see Krishnamurti 1978). For
this reason, traditional descriptions of the metathesis often refer to the process as ‘apical displacement’.
Krishnamurti (1978), for example, assumes that it is the quality of being apical that is the most important
factor underlying the metathesis discussed here. He suggests that the shift of the apical away from preconsonantal
position is to avoid assimilation to the following consonant. I argue, on the contrary, that when the
sound change originated it was the property of being a liquid that was crucial. The fact that all liquids were
apicals was perhaps incidental. Further, I do not assume that metathesis is teleological in nature, as discussed
most specifically in §5. Independent evidence against the view that apicality is the relevant property comes
from the observation that stems with a final apical nasal did not originally undergo metathesis. In fact, in
most of the Dravidian languages where this metathesis occurred, nasals were completely excluded even as
more words underwent metathesis.
226 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
runs counter to this view. The pattern is consistent, however, with the claims made
here where indeterminacy and sequence attestation play a key role.
Recall that indeterminacy is a function both of the nature of the sounds involved
and of the frequency with which a structure occurs in the language. With regard to the
first point, it is significant that only liquids, all of which were apical (dental/alveolar,
retroflex), initially participated in metathesis (Krishnamurti 1978:n. 4). The consonants
undergoing metathesis in Kuvi have since been generalized to include the nasal as well.
Recall from §3.3 that liquids and vocoids both involve so-called stretched out acoustic
cues (Blevins & Garrett 1998, Ohala 1993). We may assume that this property, in
addition to the overall similarity of these two classes of sounds, contributes to indeterminacy
regarding the onset and offset of a liquid and vowel. Although the context for
metathesis now includes nasal apicals, the similar sonorant properties of these consonants
can also contribute to indeterminacy.
Evidence also suggests that the structure that underwent (or undergoes) metathesis
is less frequent than that resulting from the change. Krishnamurti (1978) notes that
sequences undergoing metathesis were all followed by a consonant, as in the examples
in 18, meaning that the metathesized consonant was in a closed syllable. While both
VCCV and VCV sequences occurred in the language, there was and continues to be
a clear predominance of word-internal open syllables. Based on Israel 1979, the text
frequency for word-initial open syllables in Kuvi is 1,535 while for closed it is 736.
Thus, closed syllables are not disallowed; they are simply dispreferred. We also know
that the sequence liquid vowel was already attested and was therefore in competition
with the unmetathesized vowel liquid sequence since, according to Krishnamurti
and as pointed out by a referee, a previous sound change positioning an intervocalic
liquid in initial position had already occurred: VLV LV, as in Proto-Dravidian *uru
*ru ‘to burn’ (Kondi-Kui-Kuvi-Pengo-Manda). Krishnamurti argues that this change
resulted from the weakening of an unstressed initial vowel (see Blevins & Garrett 1998
for discussion of similar cases). The order liquid vowel also conforms to the general
preference for consonant-initial words in the languages.
The facts surrounding Kuvi metathesis strongly support the model of metathesis
developed in this article. The sounds involved and the patterns of usage provide a
favorable context for metathesis to occur. That the resultant sequences are resolved as
the order CCVCV is consistent with generalizations about the frequency of sequences
involving apical sounds, in particular, and of consonants and vowels in open vs. closed
syllables, more generally. Of course, each time metathesis affects a word in Kuvi, the
frequency of open syllables increases, thus further strengthening the bias towards this
pattern of sounds (for related discussion see Bybee 2000).
Before concluding the discussion of Kuvi, it is worth commenting on Israel’s (1979:
14) observation that new word-initial consonant clusters are entering the language as
a result of metathesis. In other words, the dispreference for the sequence CVCCV as
opposed to CCVCV (or more accurately: VCC as opposed to VCV) results in the
creation of previously unattested consonant sequences at the beginning of the word
(CCVCV). It is important to point out that this observation is not inconsistent with the
claims made here. It does, however, underscore the fact that a listener’s sensitivity or
bias towards one structure may have consequences that affect the structure of the language
more generally. Informally speaking, in the present case, the bias towards an
open syllable (VCV) outweighs the bias towards words beginning with a single consonant
(see the literature on optimality theory, e.g. Prince & Smolensky 1993, for relevant
discussion regarding the formal representation of competition within a language sysTHE
INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 227
tem). While I leave further discussion of the underlying factors influencing a listener’s
bias towards one pattern or another for a future time, it seems reasonable to assume that
the same factors that underlie indeterminacy (information quality, pattern frequency) are
also relevant in this case.
5. METATHESIS OBSERVATIONS REVISITED: EXPLANATIONS. As I have discussed, the
key predictors of metathesis are part universal, part language specific. The universal
component draws on the raw psychoacoustics of the sound combination at issue, while
language specificity is brought in by the influence of a speaker/hearer’s native language.
By taking into account both factors, straightforward answers to the observations raised
at the beginning of this article, repeated in 19, can be provided.
(19) Observations:
a. The acoustic/auditory cues to the identification of a sound sequence are
frequently improved by metathesis.
b. For some sound combinations, one order is favored crosslinguistically as
the result of metathesis.
c. The direction of metathesis can differ from language to language such
that either order of a given sound combination can emerge as the result
of metathesis in some language.
Consider first the observation that by metathesis, the acoustic/auditory cues to the
identification of a sound sequence are frequently improved. For example, many cases
of metathesis are attested in which a sound that depends heavily on contextual cues,
such as a stop, is realized in a position where the cues to its identification are strengthened.
This observation receives a straightforward explanation when we take into account
the nature of a metathesis input, on the one hand, and the types of sequence most apt
to influence the processing of segmental order, on the other. Considering the input,
recall that the most important predictor of metathesis is indeterminacy, which is a
function of information in the signal and language experience. Indeterminacy may thus
result from diminished perceptual salience due to similarity between the sounds, or the
masking of perceptual cues. Temporal indeterminacy can also result from lack of clarity
about the onset or offset of sounds due to stretched out cues and/or a low degree of
familiarity with the word, morpheme, or sound sequence in the signal. Each of these
scenarios can produce a context favorable for metathesis. But what kinds of sound
combinations are NOT likely to undergo metathesis? Clearly, the answer must be those
sequences that lack indeterminacy, in other words, those with sufficient information
about the identity of the sounds and their order.
By taking into account the nature of the input, it then becomes clear that one reason
why many metatheses involve an improvement in perceptual salience is because the
candidate most likely to undergo metathesis is one with weaker cues. A second reason
relates to the observation that clusters with poorer cues also tend to be less stable in
a language system and occur in fewer words than those with stronger cues (Makashay
2001). Given the view that the output of metathesis corresponds to the sequence with
the highest frequency, it then follows that if sequences with poorer cues are less frequent,
the observed cases of metathesis with non-optimal outputs will also be less commonly
attested.
The first point in 19 thus finds its explanation in the following observations. First,
sounds with robust cues are not good candidates for metathesis though ones with poorer
cues are. Second, sounds with robust cues tend to be more frequent in a system and
thus will have a greater impact on the processing of the speech signal. The infrequency
228 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
of ‘non-optimized’ metatheses then stems from the fact that the phonetic cues of the
input signal would need to be better than the output. However, clusters with good cue
packages are less likely to be indeterminate and less likely to undergo metathesis. This
then suggests that the reason that improved perceptual salience is a characteristic of
so many cases of metathesis is simply an artifact of the nature of sequences that undergo
metathesis and those that influence how an indeterminate speech signal is parsed (cf.
Hume 1998, Steriade 2001). In other words, metathesis is not teleological.
This view of metathesis also provides a straightforward explanation of the second
observation: for some sound combinations, one order is favored crosslinguistically as
the result of metathesis. This is exemplified by cases involving plosives/fricatives. As
we have seen, the stop typically metathesizes to a context with better perceptual cues,
resulting in a perceptually optimized sequence. Metatheses involving these same kinds
of sounds but where the stop shifts from an arguably better context to a worse one are
less common. The reason for this should be clear: sounds occurring in a context with
strong cues tend to provide sufficient information to allow the sounds and their ordering
to be identified. Thus, the reason one order is favored in such sequences is that, all
else being equal, only one order of the sounds generally displays indeterminacy. For
other types of sound combinations, indeterminacy may arise regardless of the order in
which the sounds occur, due to the nature of the sounds and/or the context in which
they occur. Common examples include sounds sharing the same manner and/or place
features, and sounds with phonetic cues of long duration, as we have seen.
The third observation concerns the apparent randomness of metathesis: the direction
of metathesis can differ from language to language such that either order of a given
sound combination can emerge as the result of metathesis in some language. As we
have seen, however, the direction of metathesis is not arbitrary when two important
factors are taken into account: indeterminacy in the signal and the influence of native
sound patterns on speech processing. Recall that this influence is strongest when information
specifying a sound or sound sequence is indeterminate. Greater crosslinguistic
variability is then correctly predicted in those cases where indeterminacy arises regardless
of the order of the sounds. In addition, since languages differ both in terms of their
constituent parts as well as in terms of their patterns of usage, it is also correctly
predicted that the output of metathesis will differ according to the impact that the
sound patterns have on the way speakers/hearers of different languages process an
indeterminate speech signal.17
17 A referee suggests Ossetic metathesis as a potential problem for the proposals made here. The relevant
data is laid out in Hock 1985 (see also Cheung 2002), where it is pointed out that metathesis of an obstruentsonorant
occurred both word-finally (e.g. *(ha-)abra- arv ‘sky’, *t axra- tsalx ‘wheel’, *agra- al˛
‘extremity, tip’) and word-initially (e.g. *dr&u- Urdu ‘hair’, *br&¯ t&¯ Urv&d ‘brother’, *bru¯ka- Urfut
‘eyebrow’). The word-initial outputs of metathesis were then, it is assumed, repaired by vowel epenthesis.
The referee notes, following Hock (1985), that metathesis in word-initial position is highly marked, as it
would create an initial sonorant-obstruent sequence. It is also assumed that regular metatheses are structurally
motivated, for example, by a sonority-based requirement. Since the assumption that metathesis gave rise to
a word-initial sonorant-obstruent consonant cluster was problematic for the sonority-based view, an additional
mechanism was invoked to account for this case, such as generality of application.
It is important to point out that markedness, in the sense of a universal principle, is not crucial to the
proposals made in the present article. The relative commonness of a given pattern is, in my view, determined
on a language-specific basis (see Hume & Tserdanelis 2002, Hume 2002, 2003 for related discussion). What
is important for the account of metathesis developed here is whether or not the innovative structure is attested
in the language. The observation that obstruent-sonorant sequences metathesized in Ossetic, even in absolute
word-initial position, is consistent with this view since sonorant-obstruent sequences were existing articulatory
routines in the language.
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 229
6. CONCLUSION. In this article, I have focused on one aspect of the study of metathesis:
the factors that favor and disfavor its occurrence. As I have shown, a unified and
predictive account is viable when both universal and language-specific factors are taken
into account. The universal component draws on the psychoacoustics of the sound
combination at issue and the context in which it occurs, while language specificity
results from the influence of a speaker/hearer’s knowledge of sound patterns in the
native language. I have also argued that two conditions are necessary for metathesis
to occur: first, there must be indeterminacy in the signal, and second, the structure that
would result from metathesis must already be attested in the system. Indeterminacy
sets the stage for metathesis, and a speaker/hearer’s knowledge of the sound system
and its patterns of usage influence how the signal is processed and, thus, the order in
which the sounds are parsed. The greater the indeterminacy, the more the speaker/
hearer must rely on native-language knowledge to infer the temporal ordering of the
sounds.
An important assumption in this paper is that metathesis has its roots in speech
processing. Support for this view comes in part from the observation that the sequence
resulting from metathesis conforms to an existing pattern in the language. Additional
evidence comes from the findings of Mielke and Hume (2001) concerning the influence
of word recognition on crosslinguistic patterns of metathesis. The findings of that study
confirm the view that ordering reversals are dispreferred at the beginning of a word or
root, and that metathesis overwhelmingly involves adjacent sounds. Both word position
and proximity have been shown to be significant factors conditioning speech processing
(Connine et al. 1993, Cutler et al. 1985, Hall 1992, Marslen-Wilson 1989, Marslen-
Wilson & Zwitserlood 1989).
While it is hoped that this study advances our knowledge of metathesis, it nonetheless
goes without saying that many issues remain to be addressed. For example, it is clear
that the role of experience plays a key role in predicting metathesis, given its influence
on speech processing. Yet, language use involves production as well; considering the
potential interplay of language experience and production on metathesis may also prove
fruitful. That this is an area worth investigating is suggested by Dell and colleagues
(2000:1365) who confirm that:
each utterance of a syllable tunes the language production system to favor the production of that and
similar syllables. The effect of this tuning endures longer than a single trial, and it accumulates with
the tuning associated with other utterances. The overall effect is to adapt the production system to recent
experience . . . The phonology is projected preferentially from those parts of the lexicon that are most
accessible, such as recently experienced sound forms.
It is thus reasonable to assume that a less practiced articulatory routine, whether it
involves coordinating the elements of a single sound or of a sequence of sounds, is
less precise and perhaps more difficult. The result is a bias towards more practiced
articulatory routines. With respect to metathesis, this would suggest that low-frequency
The additional assumption that obstruent-sonorant sequences metathesized in absolute word-initial position
in Ossetic is not required, however. According to Cheung (2002), at the time when metathesis took place,
Ossetic did not tolerate forms beginning with a consonant cluster. Vowel epenthesis was one strategy used
to repair such ill-formed structures. Importantly, epenthesis occurred with ALL initial clusters, not just those
that were subject to metathesis, for example, *x &p&¯ UxsavU/UxsUvU ‘night’, *tdz&r-ja- &˛dzUlyn ‘to
pour down, drip’. This then means that it is entirely reasonable to assume that the metathesizing sequence
was postvocalic when metathesis occurred. Thus, the change from obstruent-sonorant to sonorant-obstruent
consistently occurred postvocalically whether finally or medially within the word.
230 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
or nonoccurring sound sequences would tend to lose out to more practiced sequences.
I leave the implications of this topic for our understanding of metathesis open for future
research.
REFERENCES
ALEXANDER, JAMES. 1985. R-metathesis in English: A diachronic account. Journal of English
Linguistics 18.33–40.
AL-MOZAINY, HAMZA QUBLAN. 1981. Vowel alternations in a Bedouin Hijazi Arabic dialect:
Abstractness and stress. Austin: University of Texas, Austin dissertation.
AL-MOZAINY, HAMZA QUBLAN; ROBERT BLEY-VROMAN; and JOHN J. MCCARTHY. 1985.
Stress shift and metrical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 16.1.135–44.
AMBRAZAS, VYTAUTAS. 1997. Lithuanian grammar. Lithuania: Institute of the Lithuanian
Language.
ASLIN, RICHARD; DAVID PISONI; BETH HENNESSY; and ALAN PEREY. 1981. Discrimination
of voice onset time by human infants: New findings and implications for the effects
of early experience. Child Development 52.1135–45.
BAAYEN, R. HARALD, and ROCHELLE LIEBER. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A
corpus-based study. Linguistics 29.801–43.
BAILEY, CHARLES-JAMES. 1970. Toward specifying constraints on phonological metathesis.
Linguistic Inquiry 1.3.347–49.
BAT-EL, OUTI. 1988. Remarks on tier conflation. Linguistic Inquiry 19.3.477–85.
BAT-EL, OUTI. 1989. Phonology and word structure in Modern Hebrew. Los Angeles: University
of California, Los Angeles dissertation.
BAT-EL, OUTI. 1992. Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. Tel-Aviv:
Tel-Aviv University, MS.
BECKMAN, MARY, and JAN EDWARDS. 1990. Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature
of prosodic constituency. Papers in laboratory phonology 1: Between the grammar and
physics of speech, ed. by John Kingston and Mary Beckman, 152–78. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
BESNIER, NIKO. 1987. An autosegmental approach to metathesis in Rotuman. Lingua
73.201–23.
BEST, CATHERINE. 1994. The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants:
A perceptual assimilation model. The development of speech perception: The
transition from speech sounds to spoken words, ed. by Howard C. Nusbaum and Judith
Goodman, 167–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
BEST, CATHERINE; GERALD MCROBERTS; and NOMATHEMBA SITHOLE. 1988. Examination of
perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination
by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance 14.345–60.
BLACK, PAUL. 1974. Regular metathesis in Gidole. Folia Orientalia 15.47–54.
BLADON, ANTHONY. 1986. Phonetics for hearers. Language for hearers, ed. by Graham
McGregor, 1–24. Oxford: Pergamon.
BLEVINS, JULIETTE, and ANDREW GARRETT. 1998. The origin of consonant-vowel metathesis.
Language 74.3.508–55.
BLUMSTEIN, SHEILA, and KENNETH STEVENS. 1979. Acoustic invariance in speech production:
Evidence from measurements of the spectral characteristics of stop consonants. Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America 66.1001–17.
BREGMAN, ALBERT. 1990. Auditory scene analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
BREGMAN, ALBERT, and JEFFREY CAMPBELL. 1971. Primary auditory stream segregation and
perception of order in rapid sequences of tones. Journal of Experimental Psychology
89.244–49.
BROADBENT, D. E., and PETER LADEFOGED. 1959. Auditory perception of temporal order.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31.1539.
BUNYE,MARIAVICTORIA R., and ELSA PAULAYAP. 1971. Cebuano grammar notes. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
BUSH, NATHAN. 2001. Frequency effects and word-boundary palatalization in English. Frequency
and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. by Joan Bybee and Paul Hopper,
255–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 231
BUTSKHRIKIDZE, MARIKA, and JEROEN VAN DE WEIJER. 2001. On v-metathesis in Modern
Georgian. In Hume et al. 2001, 91–101.
BYBEE, JOAN. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
BYBEE, JOAN. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes
10.5.425–55.
BYBEE, JOAN. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. Usagebased
models of language, ed. by Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer, 65–86. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications.
BYBEE, JOAN. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BYRD, DANI. 1994. Articulatory timing in English consonant sequences. Los Angeles: University
of California, Los Angeles dissertation.
CHEUNG, JOHNNY. 2002. Studies in the historical development of the Ossetic vocalism.
Weisbaden: Reichert.
COLEMAN, JOHN, and JANET PIERREHUMBERT. 1997. Stochastic phonological grammars and
acceptability. Computational phonology: Proceedings of the 3rd Meeting of the ACL
special interest group in computational phonology, 49–56. Somerset, NJ: Association
for Computational Linguistics.
CONKLIN, HAROLD. 1953. Hanuno´o-English vocabulary. (University of California publications
in linguistics 9.) Berkeley: University of California Press.
CONNINE, CYNTHIA M.; DAWN G. BLASKO; and DEBRA TITONE. 1993. Do the beginnings of
spoken words have special status in auditory word recognition? Journal of Memory
and Language 32.193–210.
COˆ TE´, MARIE-HE´ LE`NE. 1997. Phonetic salience and consonant cluster simplification. MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 29.229–62.
CROUCH, MARJORIE. 1994. The phonology of Deg. Ghana: Ghana Institute of Linguistics,
Literacy and Bible Translation, MS.
CRYSTAL, DAVID. 1997. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
CUTLER, ANNE, and DENNIS NORRIS. 1988. The role of strong syllables in segmentation for
lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
14.113–21.
CUTLER, ANNE; JOHN A. HAWKINS; and GARY GILLIGAN. 1985. The suffixing preference: A
processing explanation. Linguistics 23.723–58.
DAVIDSON, JOSEPH ORVILLE, JR. 1977. A contrastive study of the grammatical structures of
Aymara and Cuzco Kechua. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
DELANCEY, SCOTT. 1989. Tibetan evidence for Nungish metathesis. Linguistics of the Tibeto-
Burman Area 12.25–31.
DELL, GARY S.; KRISTOPHER D. REED; DAVID R. ADAMS; and ANTJE S.MEYER. 2000. Speech
errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: A study of the role of experience
in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and
Cognition 26.6.1355–67.
DERBYSHIRE, DESMOND C. 1979. Hixkaryana. (Lingua descriptive studies 1.) Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
DERBYSHIRE, DESMOND C. 1985. Hixkaryana and linguistic typology. (SIL/UTA publications
in linguistics 76.) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
DIMMENDAAL, GERRIT JAN. 1983. The Turkana language. Dordrecht: Foris.
DUME´ NIL, ANNIE. 1983. A rule account of metathesis in Gascon. Columbia: University of
South Carolina dissertation.
DUME´ NIL, ANNIE. 1987. A rule account of metathesis in Gascon. Linguisticae Investigationes
11.1.81–113.
DUPOUX, EMMANUEL; CHRISTOPHE PALLIER; NU´ RIA SEBASTIAN; and JACQUES MEHLER. 1997.
A destressing ‘deafness’ in French? Journal of Memory and Language 36.406–21.
EMENEAU, MURRAY BARNSON. 1967. The South Dravidian languages. Journal of the American
Oriental Society 87.365–412.
EMENEAU,MURRAY BARNSON. 1970. Dravidian comparative phonology: A sketch. (Annamalai
University publications in linguistics 22.) Tamil Nadu, India: Annamalainagar.
FAY, WILLIAM. 1966. Temporal sequence in the perception of speech. The Hague: Mouton.
FLEMMING, EDWARD. 1995. Auditory features in phonology. Los Angeles: University of
California, Los Angeles dissertation.
232 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
FOLEY, LAWRENCE. 1980. Phonological variation in Western Cherokee. London: Garland.
FRANCIS, ALEXANDER, and HOWARD C. NUSBAUM. 2002. Selective attention and the acquisition
of new phonetic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance 28.349–66.
FRISCH, STEFAN. 1996. Similarity and frequency in phonology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University dissertation.
FRISCH, STEFAN; NATHAN LARGE; and DAVID PISONI. 2000. Perception of wordlikeness:
Effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. Journal of
Memory and Language 42.481–96.
FUJIMURA, OSAMU;M. J. MACCHI; and L. A. STREETER. 1978. Perception of stop consonants
with conflicting transitional cues: A crosslinguistic study. Language and Speech
21.4.337–46.
GRAMMONT, MAURICE. 1933. Traite´ de phone´tique. Paris: Librairie Delagrave.
HALL, CHRISTOPHER. 1992. Integrating diachronic and processing principles in explaining
the suffixing preference. Morphology and mind: A unified approach to explanations
in linguistics, ed. by Christopher Hall, 321–49. New York: Routledge.
HALLE, M.; G. W. HUGHES; and J.-P. RADLEY. 1957. Acoustic properties of stop consonants.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 29.107–16.
HALLE´, PIERRE A.; JUAN SEGUI; ULI FRAUENFELDER; and CHRISTINEMEUNIER. 1998. Processing
of illegal consonant clusters: A case of perceptual assimilation? Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24.2.592–608.
HARNSBERGER, JAMES. 2001. The perception of Malayalam nasal consonants by Marathi,
Punjabi, Tamil, Oriya, Bengali, and American English listeners: A multidimensional
scaling analysis. Journal of Phonetics 29.303–27.
HARRISON, SHELDON. 1976. Mokilese reference grammar. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii
Press.
HEINE, BERND. 1976. Notes on the Rendille language. Afrika und Ubersee 59.176–223.
HEINE, BERND. 1978. The Sam languages: A history of Rendille, Boni and Somali. Afroasiatic
Linguistics 6.2.1–92.
HEWITT, BRIAN GEORGE. 1995. Georgian: A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
HOCK, HANS HENRICH. 1985. Regular metathesis. Linguistics 23.529–46.
HUDSON, GROVER. 1975. Suppletion in the representation of alternations. Los Angeles:
University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.
HUDSON, GROVER. 1995. Phonology of Ethiopian languages. Handbook of phonological
theory, ed. by John Goldsmith, 782–97. Oxford: Blackwell.
HUME, ELIZABETH. 1997a. Consonant clusters and articulatory timing in Deg. Columbus:
The Ohio State University, MS.
HUME, ELIZABETH. 1997b. Metathesis in phonological theory: The case of Leti. Lingua
104.147–86.
HUME, ELIZABETH. 1998. The role of perceptibility in consonant/consonant metathesis. Proceedings
of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 17.293–307.
HUME, ELIZABETH. 2001. Metathesis: Formal and functional considerations. In Hume et al.
2001, 1–25.
HUME, ELIZABETH. 2002. Reconsidering the concept of markedness. Paper presented at the
4th International Phonology Meeting of the GDR, Grenoble, France, June 2002.
HUME, ELIZABETH. 2003. Language specific markedness: The case of place of articulation.
Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 19.2.295–310.
HUME, ELIZABETH, and KEITH JOHNSON. 2001a. A model of the interplay of speech perception
and phonology. In Hume & Johnson 2001b, 3–26.
HUME, ELIZABETH, and KEITH JOHNSON (eds.) 2001b. The role of speech perception in phonology.
New York: Academic Press.
HUME, ELIZABETH, and KEITH JOHNSON (eds.) 2001c. Studies on the interplay of speech
perception and phonology. (Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 55.)
Columbus: The Ohio State University.
HUME, ELIZABETH, and KEITH JOHNSON. 2003. The impact of impartial phonological contrast
on speech perception. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences
15.2385–88.
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 233
HUME, ELIZABETH; KEITH JOHNSON; MISUN SEO; GEORGIOS TSERDANELIS; and STEVE WINTERS.
1999. A crosslinguistic study of stop place perception. Proceedings of the International
Congress of Phonetic Sciences 14.2069–72.
HUME, ELIZABETH, and MISUN SEO. 2004. Metathesis in Faroese and Lithuanian: From
speech perception to optimality theory. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27.1.1–26.
HUME, ELIZABETH; NORVAL SMITH; and JEROEN VAN DE WEIJER (eds.) 2001. Surface syllable
structure and segment sequencing. Leiden: Holland Institute of Linguistics.
HUME, ELIZABETH, and GEORGIOS TSERDANELIS. 2002. Labial unmarkedness in Sri Lankan
Portuguese Creole. Phonology 19.1.441–58.
ISEBAERT, LAMBERT. 1988. Tocharian evidence for laryngeal metathesis in Indo-European.
Belgian Journal of Linguistics 3.39–46.
ISRAEL, M. 1979. A grammar of the Kuvi language. (Dravidian Linguistics Association 27.)
Trivandrum, India: Dravidian Linguistics Association.
JAKOBI, ANGELIKA. 1990. A Fur grammar. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
JACOBSON, MADS ANDREAS, and CHRISTIAN MATRAS. 1961. Føroysk-Donsk Ordabo´k. To´rshavn:
Føroya Fro´dskaparfelag.
JANDA, RICHARD. 1984. Why morphological metathesis rules are rare: On the possibility of
historical explanation in linguistics. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10.87–103.
JOHNSON, KEITH. 1997. Acoustic and auditory phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
JUN, JONGHO. 1995. Place assimilation as the result of conflicting perceptual and articulatory
constraints. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics
14.221–37.
JUSCZYK, PETER. 1997. The discovery of spoken language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
JUSCZYK, PETER, and RICHARD ASLIN. 1995. Infants’ detection of the sound patterns of words
in fluent speech. Cognitive Psychology 29.1–23.
JUSCZYK, PETER, and PAUL LUCE. 1994. Infants’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the
native language. Journal of Memory and Language 33.630–45.
KAWASAKI, HARUKO. 1982. An acoustical basis for the universal constraints on sound sequences.
Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
KENESEI, ISTVA´ N; ROBERT VAGO; and ANNA FENYVESI. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge.
KENSTOWICZ, MICHAEL. 1972. Lithuanian phonology. Urbana-Champaign: University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign dissertation.
KEYSER, SAMUEL J. 1975. Metathesis and Old English phonology. Linguistic Inquiry
6.377–411.
KIM, MI-RAN CHO. 1994. Acoustic characteristics of Korean stops and perception of English
stop consonants. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Madison dissertation.
KIPARSKY, PAUL. 1967. Sonorant clusters in Greek. Language 43.619–35.
KRISHNAMURTI, BHADRIRAJU. 1978. Areal and lexical diffusion of sound change: Evidence
from Dravidian. Language 54.1.1–20.
KUHL, PATRICIA; KAREN A. WILLIAMS; FRANCISCO LACERDA; KENNETH N. STEVENS; and
BJO¨ RN LINDBLOM. 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by
6 months of age. Science 255.606–8.
LAHIRI, ADITI, and WILLIAM MARSLEN-WILSON. 1991. The mental representation of lexical
form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition 38.245–94.
LANGDON, MARGARET. 1976. Metathesis in Yuman languages. Language 52.4.866–82.
LAYCOCK, DON. 1982. Metathesis in Austronesian: Ririo and other cases. Papers from the
Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics 1: Currents in Oceanic
(Pacific Linguistics C-74), ed. by Amran Halim, Lois Harrington, and S. A. Wurm,
269–81. Canberra: Australian National University.
LEJEUNE, MICHEL. 1972. Phone´tique historique du myce´nien et du grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck.
LESLAU, WOLF. 1963. Etymological dictionary of Harari. (University of California publications
in Near Eastern studies 1.) Berkeley: University of California Press.
LILJENCRANTS, JOHAN, and BJO¨ RN LINDBLOM. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel quality
systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language 48.4.839–62.
LINDBLOM, BJO¨ RN. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H and H theory.
Speech production and speech modeling, ed. byWilliam Hardcastle and Alain Marchal,
403–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
234 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
LLORET-ROMANYACH, MARIA-ROSA. 1988. Gemination and vowel length in Oromo morphophonology.
Bloomington: Indiana University dissertation.
LOCKWOOD, WILLIAM BURLEY. 1955. An introduction to Modern Faroese. Copenhagen:
Ejnar Munksgaard.
LUCE, PAUL. 1986. Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon. (Research on speech
perception technical report 6.) Bloomington: Indiana University.
LUCE, PAUL, and DAVID PISONI. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation
model. Ear and Hearing 19.1–36.
LYCHE, CHANTAL. 1995. Schwa metathesis in Cajun French. Folia Linguistica 29.369–93.
MACUCH, RUDOLF. 1965. Handbook of classical and modern Mandaic. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
MAKASHAY, MATTHEW. 2001. Lexical effects in the perception of obstruent ordering. In
Hume & Johnson 2001c, 88–116.
MALE´COT, ANDRE´ . 1956. Acoustic cues for nasal consonants: An experimental study involving
a tape-slicing technique. Language 32.274–84.
MALONE, JOSEPH. 1971. Systematic metathesis in Mandaic. Language 47.394–415.
MALONE, JOSEPH. 1985. Classical Mandaic radical metathesis, radical assimilation and the
devil’s advocate. General Linguistics 25.92–121.
MARSLEN-WILSON, WILLIAM. 1989. Access and integration: Projecting sound onto meaning.
Lexical representation and process, ed. byWilliam Marslen-Wilson, 3–24. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
MARSLEN-WILSON, WILLIAM, and PIENIE ZWITSERLOOD. 1989. Accessing spoken words: The
importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance 15.576–85.
MARTINEZ-GIL, FERNANDO. 1990. Topics in Spanish historical phonology. Los Angeles:
University of Southern California dissertation.
MASSARO, DOMINIC, and MICHAEL COHEN. 1983. Phonological constraints in speech perception.
Perception and Psychophysics 34.338–48.
MCCARTHY, JOHN. 1989. Linear order in phonological representation. Linguistic Inquiry
20.71–99.
MCCARTHY, JOHN. 2000. The prosody of phase in Rotuman. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 18.147–97.
MIELKE, JEFF. 2002. Turkish /h/ deletion: Evidence for the interplay of speech perception
and phonology. North Eastern Linguistic Society 32.383–402.
MIELKE, JEFF. 2003. The interplay of speech perception and phonology: Experimental evidence
from Turkish. Phonetica 60.3.208–29.
MIELKE, JEFF, and ELIZABETH HUME. 2001. Consequences of word recognition for metathesis.
In Hume et al. 2001, 135–58.
MODER, CAROL. 1992. Productivity and categorization in morphological classes. Buffalo:
State University of New York, Buffalo dissertation.
MOHR, B., and W. S.-Y. WANG. 1968. Perceptual distance and specification of phonological
features. Phonetica 18.31–45.
MONTREUIL, JEAN-PIERRE. 1981. The Romansch ‘brat’. Papers in Romance 3.1.67–76.
MOON, CHRISTINE; ROBIN COOPER; and WILLIAM FIFER. 1993. Two-day old infants prefer
native language. Infant Behavior and Development 16.495–500.
NEWMAN, STANLEY. 1944. Yokuts language of California. (Viking Fund publication in anthropology
2.) New York: Viking Fund.
OHALA, JOHN J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. Chicago Linguistic Society
17.178–203.
OHALA, JOHN J. 1992. Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential
constraints. Chicago Linguistic Society 26.319–38.
OHALA, JOHN J. 1993. Sound change as nature’s speech perception experiment. Speech
Communication 13.155–61.
OHALA, JOHN J. 1996. Speech perception is hearing sounds, not tongues. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 99.3.1718–25.
OKRAND, MARC. 1977. Mutsun grammar. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
OOMEN, ANTOINETTE. 1981. Gender and plurality in Rendille. Afroasiatic Linguistics
8.1.35–75.
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 235
OTAKE, TAKASHI; KIYOKO YONEYAMA; ANNE CUTLER; and ARIE VAN DER LUGT. 1996. The
representation of Japanese moraic nasals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
100.6.3831–42.
PADGETT, JAYE. 2001. Contrast dispersion and Russian palatalization. In Hume & Johnson
2001b, 187–279.
PALLIER, CHRISTOPHE; NU´ RIA SEBASTIAN-GALLES; TEODORA FELGUERA; ANNE CHRISTOPHE;
and JACQUES MEHLER. 1993. Attentional allocation within the syllabic structure of
spoken words. Journal of Memory and Language 32.373–89.
PARKS, DOUGLAS R. 1976. A grammar of Pawnee. New York: Garland.
PIERREHUMBERT, JANET. 1994. Knowledge of variation. Chicago Linguistic Society
30.232–56.
PITT, MARK. 1998. Phonological processes and the perception of phonotactically illegal
consonant clusters. Perception and Psychophysics 60.941–51.
PITT, MARK, and JAMES MCQUEEN. 1998. Is compensation for coarticulation mediated by
the lexicon? Journal of Memory and Language 39.347–70.
PITT, MARK, and ARTHUR SAMUEL. 1990. Attentional allocation during speech perception:
How fine is the focus? Journal of Memory and Language 29.611–32.
PITT, MARK; KATHERINE SMITH; and JAMES KLEIN. 1998. Syllabic effects in auditory word
recognition: Evidence from the structural induction paradigm. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24.1596–1611.
POLKA, LINDA, and JANET WERKER. 1994. Developmental changes in perception of nonnative
vowel contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance 20.2.421–35.
POLKA, LINDA, and JANETWERKER. 1997. Adult and infant perception of two English phones.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102.3742–53.
POLLACK, IRWIN; HERBERT RUBENSTEIN; and LOUIS DECKER. 1959. Intelligibility of known
and unknown message sets. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31.273–79.
POWELL, J. V. 1985. An occurrence of metathesis in Chimakuan. For Gordon H. Fairbanks,
ed. by Veneeta Z. Acson and Richard L. Leed, 105–10. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.
POWLISON, PAUL. 1962. Palatalization portmanteaus in Yagua (Peba-Yaguan). Word
18.280–99.
PRINCE, ALAN, and PAUL SMOLENSKY. 1993. Optimality theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University, and Boulder: University of Colorado at Boulder, MS.
RISCHEL, JøRGEN. 1972. Consonant reduction in Faroese noncompound wordforms. Studies
for Einar Haugen presented by friends and colleagues, ed. by Evelyn Scherabon Firchow,
Kaaren Grimstad, Nils Hasselmo, and Wayne O’Neil, 482–97. The Hague:
Mouton.
SAFFRAN, JENNY R.; RICHARD N. ASLIN; and ELISSA L. NEWPORT. 1996. Statistical learning
by 8-month-old infants. Science 274.1926–28.
SAFFRAN, JENNY R.; ELISSA L. NEWPORT; and RICHARD N. ASLIN. 1996. Word segmentation:
The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language 35.606–21.
SAVIN, HARRIS B. 1963. Word-frequency effect and errors in the perception of speech.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35.200–206.
SCHMIDT, DEBORAH. 1994. Phantom consonants in Basaa. Phonology 11.149–78.
SCHULZE, WOLFGANG. 2002. Functional grammar of Udi. Munich: University of Munich,
MS.
SEMILOFF-ZELASKO, HOLLY. 1973. Glide metathesis. Ohio State University Working Papers
in Linguistics 14.66–76.
SEO, MISUN. 2003. A segment contact account of the patterning of sonorants in consonant
clusters. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation.
SHAVER, DWIGHT, and GWYNNE SHAVER. 1989. Un bosquejo de la metatesis en el Quechua
de Incahuasi. Lima, Peru: Instituto Linguistico de Verano y el Ministerio de Educacion.
SHETLER, JOANNE. 1976. Notes on Balangao grammar. (Language data, Asian-Pacific series
9.) Huntington Beach, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
SHI, RUSHIN; JAMES MORGAN; and PAUL ALLOPENNA. 1998. Phonological and acoustic bases
for earliest grammatical category assignment: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal
of Child Language 25.169–201.
236 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 80, NUMBER 2 (2004)
SILVA, CLARE. 1973. Metathesis of obstruent clusters. Ohio State University Working Papers
in Linguistics 14.77–84.
SILVERMAN, DANIEL. 1995. Phasing and recoverability. Los Angeles: University of California,
Los Angeles dissertation.
SIM, RONALD J. 1981. Morphophonemics of the verbin Rendille. Afroasiatic Linguistics
8.1.1–33.
SIPTA´ R, PE´ TER, andMIKLO´ S TO¨ RKENCZY. 2000. The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
SMITH, NORVAL. 1984. All change on CV-tier: Developments in the history on A√t im and
Anut ii. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1984, ed. by Hans Bennis and W. U. S. van
Lessen Kloeke, 169–78. Dordrecht: Foris.
SOHN, HO-MIN. 1980. Metathesis in Kwara’ae. Lingua 52.305–23.
SPENCER, ANDREW. 1996. Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.
STERIADE, DONCA. 1995. Licensing retroflexion. Los Angeles: University of California, Los
Angeles, MS.
STERIADE, DONCA. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. Los
Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, MS.
STERIADE, DONCA. 2001. Directional asymmetries in assimilation: A perceptual account. In
Hume & Johnson 2001b, 219–78.
STEVENS, KENNETH N., and SHEILA E. BLUMSTEIN. 1978. Invariant cues for place of articulation
in stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 64.1358–68.
STONHAM, JOHN. 1990. Current issues in morphological theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University dissertation.
STREETER, L. 1976. Language perception of 2-month old infants shows effects of both innate
mechanisms and experience. Nature 259.39–41.
THOMPSON, LAURENCE, and TERRY THOMPSON. 1969. Metathesis as a grammatical device.
International Journal of American Linguistics 35.213–18.
TIMBERLAKE, ALAN. 1985. The metathesis of liquid diphthongs in Upper Sorbian. International
Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 31–32.417–30.
TREHUB, S. 1976. The discrimination of foreign speech contrasts by infants and adults. Child
Development 47.466–72.
TREIMAN, REBECCA, and CATALINA DANIS. 1988. Syllabification of intervocalic consonants.
Journal of Memory and Language 27.87–104.
ULTAN, RUSSELL. 1978. A typological view of metathesis. Universals of human language
2, ed. by Joseph Greenberg, 368–99. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
VAGO, ROBERT. 1980. The sound pattern of Hungarian. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
VANCE, T. 1987. An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
VENNEMANN, THEO. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
VITEVITCH, MICHAEL S., and PAUL A. LUCE. 1999. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood
activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language
40.374–408.
WANG, H. S., and BRUCE DERWING. 1994. Some vowel schemas in three English morphological
classes: Experimental evidence. In honor of Professor William S.-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary
studies on language and language change, ed. by M. Chen and O. Tzeng,
561–75. Taipei: Pyramid Press.
WANG, WILLIAM S.-Y. 1959. Transition and release as perceptual cues for final plosives.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 3.66–73.
WANNER, DIETER. 1989. On metathesis in diachrony. Chicago Linguistic Society 25.434–50.
WARREN, RICHARD M. 1982. Auditory perception: A new synthesis. New York: Pergamon
Press.
WEBB, CHARLOTTE. 1974. Metathesis. Austin: University of Texas, Austin dissertation.
WERKER, JANET; JOHN GILBERT; KEITH HUMPHREY; and RICHARD TEES. 1981. Developmental
aspects of cross-language speech perception. Child Development 52.349–55.
WERKER, JANET, and RICHARD TEES. 1984. Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for
perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development
7.49–63.
THE INDETERMINACY/ATTESTATION MODEL OF METATHESIS 237
WERKER, JANET, and RICHARD TEES. 1999. Influences on infant speech processing: Towards
a new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology 50.509–35.
WILSON, M. D. 1988. The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine readable dictionary,
Version 2. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 20.1.6–11.
WINFIELD, W. W. 1928. A grammar of the Kui language. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society of
Bengal.
WINTERS, STEPHEN. 2001. VCCV perception: Putting place in its place. In Hume et al. 2001,
230–47.
WOLFF, JOHN U. 1972. A dictionary of Cebuano Visayan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University,
Southeast Asia Program, and Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
WRIGHT, RICHARD. 1996. Consonant clusters and cue preservation in Tsou. Los Angeles:
University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.
WRIGHT, RICHARD. 2001. Perceptual cues in contrast maintenance. In Hume & Johnson
2001b, 251–77.
ZABORSKY, ANDRZEJ. 1986. The morphology of nominal plural in the Cushitic languages.
Vienna: Institute fu¨r Afrikanistik und Agyptologie der Universita¨t Wien.
Department of Linguistics [Received 23 September 2002;
222 Oxley Hall accepted 9 June 2003]
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210
[ehume@ling.osu.edu]

Etimologie

2011-10-10T23:49:00.000-07:00

http://www.takeourword.com/theory.html
ETYMOLOGICAL THEORY

How words are created

By imitation of sounds (onomatopoeia)
Meow, bang, crackle, zip, ring
Through extended meanings
The verb fly becomes: the name of an insect, a baseball that is hit high, the space over a theater stage
As derivations
From study comes student, from moon comes month
Through compound words
Notebook, bedroom and mailbox are some obvious examples but also note elbow (ell + bow) and lackadaisical (from the expression 'lackaday' which itself derives from 'alack the day').
From root + affix
Prefix + root
Pro- (forward or forth) + duce (lead) = produce ("bring forth")
Root + suffix
Wonder + -full = wonderful
Through changing pronunciation
Breakfast, cupboard, extraordinary
Through changing spelling
Alone is from 'all one'. Felt was once used to strain liquid, so the piece of felt used as the strainer became known as a felter, which later changed to filter. "God be with you" was once a valediction which, over the centuries, came to be pronounced and spelled as good-bye.
From names (eponyms)
People's names:
The Teddy Bear is named after Teddy Roosevelt and the electrical volt after Alessandro Volta.
Place names:
Frankfurters after named after Frankfurt, Germany, and jeans after Genoa, Italy.
Trade names:
Kleenex, Band-aid, Jello, Xerox, Hoover
From the shortening or truncating of words
Telephone becomes phone, photograph becomes photo, megabyte becomes meg
From acronyms
Sonar = SOund NAvigation Ranging, laser = Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation
Portmanteau words
Motor + hotel = motel
From foreign words
Influenza (Italian), rendezvous (French), chow (Chinese), opal (Sanskrit)
Invented words
Quiz, quark

Etymology

2011-10-10T23:25:00.000-07:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology
Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time.

For languages with a long written history, etymologists make use of texts in these languages and texts about the languages to gather knowledge about how words were used during earlier periods of their history and when they entered the languages in question. Etymologists also apply the methods of comparative linguistics to reconstruct information about languages that are too old for any direct information to be available. By analyzing related languages with a technique known as the comparative method, linguists can make inferences about their shared parent language and its vocabulary. In this way, word roots have been found that can be traced all the way back to the origin of, for instance, the Indo-European language family.

Even though etymological research originally grew from the philological tradition, currently much etymological research is done on language families where little or no early documentation is available, such as Uralic and Austronesian.

Term

The word "etymology" (pronounced /ɛtɨˈmɒlədʒi/) derives from Greek ἐτυμολογία (etumologíā); from ἔτυμον (étumon), meaning "true sense", and -λογία (-logía), meaning "study"; from λόγος (lógos), meaning "speech, account, reason".[1] Folk etymology is the sound, spelling and meaning of a word which is changed by the influences of cultures.[2]
[edit] Methods

Etymologists apply a number of methods to study the origins of words, some of which are:

Philological research. Changes in the form and meaning of the word can be traced with the aid of older texts, if such are available.
Making use of dialectological data. The form or meaning of the word might show variations between dialects, which may yield clues about its earlier history.
The comparative method. By a systematic comparison of related languages, etymologists may often be able to detect which words derive from their common ancestor language and which were instead later borrowed from another language.
The study of semantic change. Etymologists must often make hypotheses about changes in the meaning of particular words. Such hypotheses are tested against the general knowledge of semantic shifts. For example, the assumption of a particular change of meaning may be substantiated by showing that the same type of change has occurred in other languages as well.

[edit] Types of word origins

Etymological theory recognizes that words originate through a limited number of basic mechanisms, the most important of which are borrowing (i.e., the adoption of "loanwords" from other languages); word formation such as derivation and compounding; and onomatopoeia and sound symbolism, (i.e., the creation of imitative words such as "click").

While the origin of newly emerged words is often more or less transparent, it tends to become obscured through time due to sound change or semantic change. Due to sound change, it is not readily obvious that the English word set is related to the word sit (the former is originally a causative formation of the latter). It is even less obvious that bless is related to blood (the former was originally a derivative with the meaning "to mark with blood"). Semantic change may also occur. For example, the English word bead originally meant "prayer". It acquired its modern meaning through the practice of counting the recitation of prayers by using beads.
[edit] English language
Main article: History of the English language

English derives from Old English (sometimes referred to as Anglo-Saxon), a West Germanic variety, although its current vocabulary includes words from many languages.[3] The Old English roots may be seen in the similarity of numbers in English and German, particularly seven/sieben, eight/acht, nine/neun, and ten/zehn. Pronouns are also cognate: I/mine/me ich/mein/mich; thou/thine/thee and du/dein/dich; we/wir us/uns; she/sie. However, language change has eroded many grammatical elements, such as the noun case system, which is greatly simplified in modern English, and certain elements of vocabulary, some of which are borrowed from French. Although many of the words in the English lexicon come from Romace languages, most of the common words used in English are of Germanic origin.

When the Normans conquered England in 1066 (see Norman Conquest), they brought their Norman language with them. During the Anglo-Norman period, which united insular and continental territories, the ruling class spoke Anglo-Norman, while the peasants spoke the vernacular English of the time. Anglo-Norman was the conduit for the introduction of French into England, aided by the circulation of Langue d'oïl literature from France. This led to many paired words of French and English origin. For example, beef is related, through borrowing, to modern French bœuf, veal to veau, pork to porc, and poultry to poulet. All these words, French and English, refer to the meat rather than to the animal. Words that refer to farm animals, on the other hand, tend to be cognates of words in other Germanic languages. For example swine/Schwein, cow/Kuh, calf/Kalb, and sheep/Schaf. The variant usage has been explained by the proposition that it was the Norman rulers who mostly ate meat (an expensive commodity) and the Anglo-Saxons who farmed the animals. This explanation has passed into common folklore but has been disputed.

English has proven accommodating to words from many languages, as described in the following examples. Scientific terminology relies heavily on words of Latin and Greek origin. Spanish has contributed many words, particularly in the southwestern United States. Examples include buckaroo from vaquero or "cowboy"; alligator from el lagarto or "lizard"; rodeo and savvy; states' names such as Colorado and Florida. Cuddle, eerie, and greed come from Scots; albino, palaver, lingo, verandah, and coconut from Portuguese; diva, prima donna, pasta, pizza, paparazzi, and umbrella from Italian; adobe, alcohol, algebra, algorithm, apricot, assassin, caliber, cotton, hazard, jacket, jar, julep, mosque, Muslim, orange, safari, sofa, and zero from Arabic; honcho, sushi, and tsunami from Japanese; dim sum, gung ho, kowtow, kumquat, ketchup, and typhoon from Cantonese Chinese; behemoth, hallelujah, Satan, jubilee, and rabbi from Hebrew; taiga, sable, and sputnik from Russian; galore, whiskey, phoney, trousers, and Tory from Irish; brahman, guru, karma, and pandit from Sanskrit; kampong and amok from Malay; smorgasbord and ombudsman from Swedish; sauna from Finnish; and boondocks from the Tagalog word, bundok. (See also "loanword.")
[edit] History

The search for meaningful origins for familiar or strange words is far older than the modern understanding of linguistic evolution and the relationships of languages, which began no earlier than the 18th century. From Antiquity through the 17th century, from Pāṇini to Pindar to Sir Thomas Browne, etymology had been a form of witty wordplay, in which the supposed origins of words were changed to satisfy contemporary requirements.

The Greek poet Pindar (born in approximately 522 BCE) employed creative etymologies to flatter his patrons. Plutarch employed etymologies insecurely based on fancied resemblances in sounds. Isidore of Seville's Etymologiae was an encyclopedic tracing of "first things" that remained uncritically in use in Europe until the sixteenth century. Etymologicum genuinum is a grammatical encyclopedia edited at Constantinople in the ninth century, one of several similar Byzantine works. The fourteenth-century Legenda Aurea begins each vita of a saint with a fanciful excursus in the form of an etymology.[citation needed]
[edit] Ancient Sanskrit
Main article: Nirukta

The Sanskrit linguists and grammarians of ancient India were the first to make a comprehensive analysis of linguistics and etymology. The study of Sanskrit etymology has provided Western scholars with the basis of historical linguistics and modern etymology. Four of the most famous Sanskrit linguists are:

Yaska (c. 6th-5th centuries BCE)
Pāṇini (c. 520-460 BCE)
Kātyāyana (2nd century BCE)
Patañjali (2nd century BCE)

These linguists were not the earliest Sanskrit grammarians, however. They followed a line of ancient grammarians of Sanskrit who lived several centuries earlier. The earliest of attested etymologies can be found in Vedic literature in the philosophical explanations of the Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads.

The analyses of Sanskrit grammar done by the previously mentioned linguists involved extensive studies on the etymology (called Nirukta or Vyutpatti in Sanskrit) of Sanskrit words, because the ancient Indo-Aryans considered sound and speech itself to be sacred and, for them, the words of the sacred Vedas contained deep encoding of the mysteries of the soul and God.
[edit] Ancient Greco-Roman

One of the earliest philosophical texts of the Classical Greek period to address etymology was the Socratic dialogue Cratylus (c. 360 BCE) by Plato. During much of the dialogue, Socrates makes guesses as to the origins of many words, including the names of the gods. In his Odes Pindar spins complimentary etymologies to flatter his patrons. Plutarch (Life of Numa Pompilius) spins an etymology for pontifex ("bridge-builder"):

the priests, called Pontifices.... have the name of Pontifices from potens, powerful, because they attend the service of the gods, who have power and command over all. Others make the word refer to exceptions of impossible cases; the priests were to perform all the duties possible to them; if any thing lay beyond their power, the exception was not to be cavilled at. The most common opinion is the most absurd, which derives this word from pons, and assigns the priests the title of bridge-makers. The sacrifices performed on the bridge were amongst the most sacred and ancient, and the keeping and repairing of the bridge attached, like any other public sacred office, to the priesthood.

[edit] Medieval
Main article: Medieval etymology

Isidore of Seville compiled a volume of etymologies to illuminate the triumph of religion. Each saint's legend in Jacob de Voragine's Legenda Aurea begins with an etymological discourse on the saint's name:

Lucy is said of light, and light is beauty in beholding, after that S. Ambrose saith: The nature of light is such, she is gracious in beholding, she spreadeth over all without lying down, she passeth in going right without crooking by right long line; and it is without dilation of tarrying, and therefore it is showed the blessed Lucy hath beauty of virginity without any corruption; essence of charity without disordinate love; rightful going and devotion to God, without squaring out of the way; right long line by continual work without negligence of slothful tarrying. In Lucy is said, the way of light.[4]

[edit] Modern era
Further information: comparative method

Etymology in the modern sense emerged in the late 18th century European academia, within the context of the wider "Age of Enlightenment," although preceded by 17th century pioneers such as Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn, Vossius, Stephen Skinner, Elisha Coles, and William Wotton. The first known systematic attempt to prove the relationship between two languages on the basis of similarity of grammar and lexicon was made in 1770 by the Hungarian, János Sajnovics, when he attempted to demonstrate the relationship between Sami and Hungarian (work that was later extended to the whole Finno-Ugric language family in 1799 by his fellow countryman, Samuel Gyarmathi).[5] The origin of modern historical linguistics is often traced back to Sir William Jones, an English philologist living in India, who in 1782 observed the genetic relationship between Sanskrit, Greek and Latin. Jones published his The Sanscrit Language in 1786, laying the foundation for the field of Indo-European linguistics.

The study of etymology in Germanic philology was introduced by Rasmus Christian Rask in the early 19th century and elevated to a high standard with the German Dictionary of the Brothers Grimm. The successes of the comparative approach culminated in the Neogrammarian school of the late 19th century. Still in the 19th century, the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche used etymological strategies (principally and most famously in On the Genealogy of Morals, but also elsewhere) to argue that moral values have definite historical (specifically, cultural) origins where modulations in meaning regarding certain concepts (such as "good" and "evil") show how these ideas had changed over time—according to which value-system appropriated them. This strategy gained popularity in the 20th century, and philosophers, such as Jacques Derrida, have used etymologies to indicate former meanings of words to de-center the "violent hierarchies" of Western metaphysics.

Sensurile cuvantului ``rom`` in sanskrita

2011-02-18T04:51:00.000-08:00

Ram sau rom in sanskrita inseamna:
-Negru, nomad,frumos sau a intretine relatii sexuale.
In limba romani la unele triburi exista expresia ``romarau man``= ma casatoresc(deci relatii sexuale).
Sensuri care nu exista in limba romana referitor la cuvantul ``roman``.

Cat despre sufixul ``ani`` din ``Romani`` gasim :
morkhi-piele
morkhiani-de piele
sastri-fier
sastrani-de fier

Exemple exista multe in limba romani.Romani inseamna limba negrilor, nomazilor sau a frumosilor.

Ramni in hindi inseamna Romni-adica ``tiganca``

2011-02-18T04:06:00.000-08:00

Allied Chambers transliterated Hindi-Hindi-English dictionary De Henk W. Wagenaar,S. S. Parikh,D. F. Plukker,R. Veldhuijzen van Zanten
http://books.google.ro
La pagina 535
Hindi
Ramni-a woman, beautiful or excelent woman an adolescent girl
femeie, frumoasa sau excelenta femeie sau adolescenta
In Romani are acelasi sens si unele triburi rome chiar pastreaza pronuntia ``ram``.De altfel chiar in India ``a`` si ``o`` se confunda , ca si in romana, in Banat:``o facut`` in loc de ``a facut``.

Rom in romani inseamna barbat si Romni femeie.Sufixul feminin ``ni`` este uzitat pe scara larga in toate limbile indiei pentru a forma femininul.
Exemplu:
Jat sunt o populatie indiana .Pentru a forma femininul se adauga ``ni`` Jatni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatni
Jatni
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jatni can refer to:
A female Jat
Jatni or Jatani, a town in Orissa, India.

Pentru a publica materialul cereti permisiunea.Scris de mine Carpaci Marian

all peoples are brothers

2010-08-26T01:59:00.000-07:00

Very nice picture

Lila romane 5

2010-08-25T21:38:00.000-07:00

Arakhimasko konsenso vash e specialne trubujmata e minoritatengo: e sikavimata katar o Chapman v. UK - "An Emerging Concensus on the Special Needs of Minorities: The Lessons of Chapman v. UK"

4 June 2004

Luke Clements

K-o 18to Januarjo, 1998to bersh, e Evropako Kriss vash e Manushenge Chachimata dine avri e decizia vash o Chapman v. UK kaso, thaj aver shtar phangle kasuria. O shov-to kaso (Varey v. UK) sas nakhado katar o guverno UK dji kana areslo ke Kriss thaj khatar biformalno krissipe sas dino vash kado kaso.

Chapman v. UK si o palutno andar e serja vashnenge kasuria line katar e krissaria ando UK thaj Holandia marindos pes e restrikcienca karing e shajmata e Romenge ko beshipen ande khera. Pe angluni rig, kadala kasuria sikaven pes relevanto kodolenca andar e Evropake thema kaj e Roma inke djiven sar nomadi (phiren). Sa jekh, e kasuria vazden problemuria but vashne andar savorre Roma.

E facturia ando Chapman v. UK si but phralne kodolenge andar o angluno kaso savo e Evropako Kriss vash e Manushikane Chachimata pakiaja, kodo anavdo Buckley v. UK (1996). I rajuni Chapman djivdias peske familiasa ande lengi karavana, savi von parkisarde pe kodo than savo lako sas. I phuv sas kaj o agor jekhe tikne gavesko thaj vi kana I rajuni Chapman manglias permisia te thol lan pe laki phuv, o konsilio chi kamlias (vi kana voj djivdias ande kodo than but bersha thaj nas lan than kaj te djivel). I rajuni Chapman sas protiv/mamuj e bikamlimasko e Krissengo andar o UK feri chi lias resultaturia lache.

E fakturia ande Varey v. UK sas phralne. Vi e manusha save ruje pes sas Roma thaj kinde thana kaj te parkin peske karavani. O than sas, orisar, tradicionalno usirime katar e Roma sar kampo thaj e rajesko thaj e rajuniako Varey mangipe vash e planifikaciaki permisia sas akceptuirime anglunes thaj pala kodo I decisia sas paruvdi katar jekh governosko ministro.

Ando UK, vareso so si specifichno e romenge si o phirimasko djivipen, thaj partikularno, I purani tradicia vash o djivipen ande karavani thaj aver phirimaske khera. I rajuni Chapman aba but phendias kaj avela virtualno imposibilo kaj e Roma te len permisia katar e autoriteturia te parkin peske karavani ande gava inke pe thana saven e Romen sas.

Ande Kriss phendias pes kaj 80 procenturia andar e gadje save mangle permisia te vazden khera pe thana save len sas aba line lan, thaj feri 20 procenturia andar e Romenge mangimata e permisiake te thon e karavani pe el thana saven len sas, sas akceptuime.

E rajuniako Buckley rovipen chi sas akceptuime ando 1996 to bersh soske e Kriss pakiaias ke e autoriteturia andar o UK chi sikade ke kerde bigogiarde butia. Von dine e rajuniake Buckley o shaipe te beshel pe aver than thaj e akcia save line protiv/mamuj lake chi sas but bilachi - sas te pokinel cira love. E rajuniako Chapman rovipen sas cira aver soske voj sas te pokinel maj but love thaj e autoriteturia chi dine lake shaipe te djal pe aver than.

I. Analiza

1.1 E madjoritatea E decisia vash o Chapman, kaj o madjoriteto sas 10:7, sas ke othe chi sas ushteadi e Evropaki Konvencia vash e Manushenge Chachipena. Kado si pasheder sar o Buckley v. UK (1996) (kaj o majority sas 6:3) thaj sikavel kaj o UK si les phareder buti te lel lache resultaturia pe kadala kasuria. Chaches, dinias avri andar e kriss o Varey, dji akana but probabilno si ke xasarenas o angluno kaso pe Romenge chachipena ko Strasbourg.

1.2 O paruvindos akceso kaj e minoritatenge chachimata Jekh but vashno kluchia savi dikhel po nivelo kaj e Evropake normi roden o respekto e minoritatengo sas stabilime. E madjoritatea pakiaje kaj von chi resle jekh kritichno gogiaverimasko nivelo sar si te phenel zorasa protiv/mamuj UK; e minoritatea pakial kaj von resle. Implichitno ande kado bixachiaripen si ke maj palal si but posibilno kaj kadala normi te aven sufichiento stabilime te mukhen e Kriss te phenel jekh protivno phenipen.

Èsecialno anda kado o krissipen si jekh ingiaripen maj palal e eksekuciako andar o UK. Dji kana chi kerela pes jekh baro lacharipen kaj e lokalno tratamento e Romengo ande avutne bersha, e Kriss si virtualno sigurno te arakhel protiv /mamuj UK - soske kasavo tratamento nashti avel maj dur.

1.3 De kana o akceptuimos e akcienge katar UK kaj sas dikhlo sar mamuj e generalne Evropake standarduria sas kasavi vashno problema, si but interesanto te keras analisa pe kodo sar e krissaria alosarde, dikhindos kaj lenge origini. Andar e deshuefta krissaria, pe desh shaj kerel pes deskripcia ke aven andar e Vest Evropake thema thaj efta aven andar e Est thaj Centralno Evropake thema.(vi I Turkia) E efta krissaria katar e Est thaj Centralno Evropake thema savore, ba jekh, alosarde protiv /mamuj jekhe phagerimasko, thaj e madjoritatea e krissarengo katar I Vest Evropa (6:4) pakiaje kaj e chahimata e rajunike Chapman sas phagerde. E impikacia sas kaj katar o Vest Evropako dikhipen, o UK pelas tela e "akceptuirimaske standarduria".

II. E legalne argumenturia e rajuniake Chapman

2.1 E krissaria e rajuniake Chapman rodine te keren duj butia. Jekhto von rodine te keren e Kriss te pakial ke e fakturia andar kado kaso si diferento katar kodola andar Buckley v UK (1996). Dujto von zorasa phende (o ERRC djutinias) kaj inke katar o 1996to bersh kerdas pes jkeh konsensus mashkar e internacionalne organisacie soske trubul te len pes specifichne akcie te sikaven e Romengi pozicia, mashkar aver, sar si o beshimos ande khera thaj generalne djivimaske kondicie. Pe el Kotora 8 thaj 14 si musaj te kerel pes intepretacia soske si te kerel pes klarifikacia e mashkarthemutnesko konsensuso vash e Romengi bilachi situacia thaj o trebujpen te lel pes urgento akcia pe kodo. (dikh krissipen kaj o paragrafo 89)

2.2 Thaj maj but, e krissaria rodine te keren klarifikacia pe varesave aspekturia katar I decizia e Krisseski ando 1996to bersh vash o Buckely. Vash kado but vashno sas o legalno puchipen kana e themeski akcia zorasa te mukil e karavana jekhe Romane manusheski sas po Kotor 8 - kaj garantuil o chahipen kaj privatno thaj familialno djivipen, kher thaj korespondenca - soske chi muklas lan te avel lan lako kher, vaj sas po Kotor 8 soske o maj buxlo thaj maj personalno problemo chi mukel te avel "privatno thaj familialno djivipen".

III E Krisseski posicia

3.1 Sar sas ramome maj anglal, e Kriss sas phagerdi ande peski decisia, feri savore pakiaje kaj o plano zorasa te mukis jekh karavana chi respektuisardias o Kotor 8 na feri soske sas o chahipen ko kher, soske othe kaj sas jekh kasht chi sas feri privatno thaj familialno djivipen, sas tradicionalno djivipen.

3.2 Kado si vashno soske e Kriss buxliardas o impakto e kasave mukimatengo, akceptuindos ke von materialno xamin pes e familako djivipenesa na feri e kheresa.

O praktichno vashnipen si phanglo katar o problemi pe sode vrama si te beshen pe thana.

E Kriss aba phendias maj anglal ke o chahipen ko "respekto e varekasko kher" te sikavela pes ande kasave kasuria, e karavana si te avel ingerdi ilegalno pe jekh than pe varesavi vriama (o chahipen chi existuil kaj e beshipena sas pe cira vriama). Sa jekh, pala e posicia e Krisseski kaj sas ko Chapman, e problema e "familiako djivipen" akana si ke savore mukimata si te aven protektuime katar o Kotor 8, soske e familiake phanglimata si independento katar e vriama e beshimatengo.

3.3 O dikhipen e majoritateako E madjoritatea e Krissesko pakiaje ke e materialne kondicie e rajuniake Chapman na-j diferento kodolenge andar o Buckley kaso. Kana e Evropako Kriss vash e Manushikane chachimata naj obliguime te djal sa pe kodola decizie so maj naglal dinias avri, atunchi zumavel te lel iste decizie pe amalne kasuria

O aver xachiaripen pe kado krissipen si ke e Romenge problemuria pakial pes ke si kontroversime thaj e Kriss chi kamel te lel akcia dji kana e themengi akcie si bilache.

Ande Kriss kado si phendo sar te mekhes e Themenge Membruria "jekh buxli dikhimaski marginea". (e Kriss del e Themes but zor te lel decizia)

3.4 E Kriss lias tradicionalno (sasti vriama) kadi posicia soske chi kamlias te lel decisia pe but sensitivno butia (kaj xamil kalifikime chachimata sar si o chachipen ke jekh privatno djivipen, ke slobodo phenipen vaj ande pacea te loshal e butiandar so si les).

Aba kado si klaro sar si limiti pe kado gandipen thaj akcentuime (zuriardo) ke so si maj baro phageripen, avela maj tikno o pisibiliteto gandimasko.

Decisie sar si te del permisia si kodoleske jekh kaj e Kriss si baro shajpe te del e themes baro shajpe te gandil. E Kriss si shajpe te avel maj cira lachi othe kaj del pes duma pe kasave problemi sar discriminacia pe relacia (phanglipen) e edukaciake provisii vaj, shaj, beshipen ande khera ande foruria.

3.5 But vashno, ando Chapman krissipen, e Kriss akceptuisardias ke kana jekh generalno akceptuime standardo eksistuil ande sasti Evropa vash e chachimata e minoritatengo, atunchi shaj mangel e UK te kerel pala kado. Pe kado phenel pes (ko para 93-94):

Othe shaj avel phendo ke si jekh arakhimasko mashkarthemutno konsenso mashkar e Thema save si ko Evropako Konsilio save keren prindjaripen pe specialne trubuimata e minoritatengo thaj pe obligacia te keren protekcia vash lengo sekuriteto, identiteto thaj djivimasko stilo,na feri protekcia vash e minoritatenge interesuria ba te inkiaren o kulturalno diversiteto e saste komunitateako.Sa jekh, e Kriss chi si lan bari pakiv pe kodo ke o konsenso si dosta konkretno anda kodo te lel sosko sikavipen ko phiravipen (sherutnipen) vaj standarduria save e Kontractuime Thema pakian ke si kamle ande savore situacie.

3.6 Ande vriama kana kadi evaluacia si depresivno, si but klaro ke e Kriss kerela preparacia te arakhel jekh diferento decizia pe kado kaso, kana kadala standarduria aresle dosta konkretno. Musaj te avel jekh vramiaki problema dji kana kado avela: o ushteavimos (ritmo) si sigeder. Ande neve masuri si thodine vashne rekomandacie katar e Evropako Konsilio, o buxliaripen e Kotoresko 14 katar i Konvencia via Protokol 12, o reporto katar OSCE, thaj e Direktiva katar EU vash e Rasialno Ekualiteto.

3.7 Ande vriama kana e efta krissaria ando minoriteto chi kamle kado dikhipen, inke o madjoriteto akceptuisardas kodo ke o UK chi reslias lache resultaturia kana rodas te aresel peske themutne thaj mashkarthemutne obligacie thaj pe kado shaj kerel pes deskripcia sar "rovimasko":

E problema vash e determinacia anglal e Kriss ande kado kaso na-j ke akceptuil pes vaj na jekh generalno situacia, orisar rovimaski, ande Khetane Thagarimata (UK) ke KT so trubul te kerel pala o mashkarthemutno zakono, aba kodo limitime kana e partikularne kazoske kondicie sikaven jekh pahgeripen(ushteavipen) e chachimasko e rajuniako Chapman ke pesko kher pala o Kotor 8 katar i Konvencia. Kana kerdias jekh kasavi zurali deklaracia karing o bilacho tratamento e Romengo ando UK, e Kriss djanglas ke kadi situacia sas aba kritikime katar e Britaniake Krissaria.Sar misaliake, jekh baro krissari pakial kaj kodo sas "jekh bilacho gandipen vash o themutno gindipen."

3.8 Baro posibilno shajpen andar e avutne decizie si kodo ke, kana lelas pes e krisseski decizia po Chapman, e Kriss phendias palem peski decizia ande Thlimmenos v Greece (2000) ke ilegalno diskriminacia shaj kerel pes othe kaj o them del iste sankcie e manushen ande differente materialne situacie. Bibaxtales, vi kana e Kriss kerdias

preparacia te dikhel e zurale ameajmata mashkar sar sas tratime e rajuni Chapman thaj o raj Iakovos Thlimmenos, arakhlias jekh ushteavipen( phageripen) ande o kaso katar i Grekia thaj ( dikhindos ke "dikhimaski marginea") chi jekh ushteavipen ande UK kaso.

3.9 Tipichno, e diskriminacia sas aba koncentruime pe governonge bilache resultaturia te tratin similarno manusha ande isto modo(felo). O Thlimmenos kaso sas pe jekh manush savo kerdias phandjmos soske chi kamlas te djal ande armia pe raligiake motivuria. Pala kodo aba nashtisailas ke resel kontabilo(manush savo kerel buti e lovenca) lilesa soske kerdas kado phandajpe. E Kriss phendias kaj kadi akcia chi reslias lache resultaturia soske chi kerdas dinstincia mashkar e manusha save kerde phandajmos soske bilache sas thaj kodola save kerde phandajmos pe religiosno motivuria.

Isto principio(gandipen) trubul te kerel pes aplikacia ande romengi situacia soske von phenen ke von ushteaven(phagaren)planoski kontrola pala lengo kulturalno djivipen, diferento avere manushendar save phageren(ushteaven) soske aver motivuria si len.

3.10 O bixachiardo minoriteto Soske kodola efta krissaria kerde preparacia te den krisseski decizia ke jekh ushteavipen (phageripen) sas kerdo kodo si but vashno soske kodko si sar o UK sas pasheder te xasarel ande kado kaso sar ande angluni Buckley decizia.

3.11 Ando Buckley krissipen, jekh partikularno zuralo bixachardo gandipesas phendo katar o francuzo krissari Pettiti, savo phendias mashkar aver:

O pharipen e instituciengo andar o Strasbourg kana keren indentifikacia pe kasave problemi si ke o kmalo xamipen thaj kidipen e zakonurengo administrativne (svako shaj avel akceptuime korkori) kerel, jekhto, totalno biposibilno andar jekhe Romengi familia te akharen pe kriss pala lengo beshipen, socialno djivipen thaj e chavorrengi integracia ande shkola, thaj dujto, ande diferente departamenturia katar o governo save keren buti po inkiaripen e foroski natura, po dromengo akceso, pe permisiengo mangipen, po dromesko sekuriteto thaj publichno sastipen, xacharel pes kaj e Buckely familia si astarde ande jekh "bilacho truj".

3.12 O minoriteto ando Chapman sa kadia phende ke chi kamen kodo phenipen ke chi sas jekh zuralo Evropako akceso kaj o tratamento e minoritatengo, thaj phende (kaj o 3to para pala lengo gandipen):

Si jekh arakhimasko konsenso mashkar e Thema Membruria katar e Evropako Konsilio save keren prindjaripen pe specialne trubuimata e minoritatengo thaj pe obligacia te keren protekcia vash lengo sekuriteto, identiteto thaj djivimasko stilo.

Kado konsenso prindjarel ke e protekcia vash e minoritatenge chachimata, sar e Roma, chi mangel feri e Kontraktime Thema te arakhen pes te praktikuin kodola politke save keren diskriminacia pe minoriteturia thaj inke, othe kaj trubul, von trebun te roden te lacharen lengi situacia te implementuin specialne programuria thaj te lacharen o zakono. Kodoleske amen nashti te kamas so o madjoriteto kamel kodo ke o konsenso na-j dosta konkreto vaj lengi decizia ke o pharipen po maripen mashkar interesuria bichalel e Krisseske jekh but striktno dikhimaski misia.

3.13 O minoriteto lias decizia (ko 5-to para pala lengo Dikhipen/Phenipen) ke e bilache resultaturia save sas line pe lungo(bari) vriama katar e lokalne autoriteturia kana ande lenge politike rodine te len lache decizie vash e Roma, sas mishto dikhle de kana rodias pes te kerel pes implementacia pe e Romenge duj riga, publichno thaj privatno, ke o governo katar UK djanglas kaj o zakono thaj e politka ande praktika chi rodel e trubuimata e Romenege thaj lengi politika kana mukhle e Lokalne Autoriteturia te len decizia pe Roma sas lan cikno efekto. Pe kado von pakian ke:

Si bilaches te rodes te mukis jekh Romengi familia anda lengo kher pala lengo than ande kodola kondicie kana chi sikadas pes te avel aver legalno, shaimasko than puterdo vash lende.

Thaj ke e lokalne autoriteturia kodoleske trabun te roden kodola shajmata save shaj te protektuin o kher, privatno djivipen e romengo sar e kodoleske kaj manglas.

3.14 O Krissari katar I Malta, o Giovanni Bonello, phendias piro gindipen savo na-j sasa sar vi averenge krisarengo. Vov rodias te sikavel ke si bilaches te kerel pes koncentracia pe kodo ke e rajuni Chapman chi reslias lache resultaturia katar o UK zakono, kana o Governo phagerdas(ushtadias) peske mashkarthemutne obligacie vash e minoriteturia, thaj e lokalne autoriteturia chi djangle te keren peske butia pala o themutno zakono katar UK. Vov phendias:

6. Jekh publiko autoriteto si musaj te respektuil jekh zakono sar svako individulano manush. Lesko responsabiliteto si bareder jekhe manushesko savo djivel ande kasave grupuria save virtualno si zorime te ushteaven o zakono ka te avel len shajpe ko chahipen ke jekh privatno thaj familiako djivipen - individualne manusha save trubun te ushteaven o zakono soske e autoriteturia chi resle lache resultaturia maj anglal.

7. Pe kado kaso, sol duj e autoriteturia thaj e individualne manusha nakhle e legalno granica (xotari). Feri sas e autoritatengi dosh kana dikhle o zakono savo kerdas e manushen te aven doshale. Kodo ke e autoriteturia chi resle lache resultaturia andias jekh situacia savi rodel te kerel eksplikacia pe trubuimaski protekcia. Soske jekh kriss pe manushikane chachimata si musaj te dikhel shukareder po dureardo zakonosko phageripen(ushteavipen) kerdo katar o zuralo, de sar pe kodo zorime po bizuralo, chi sas inke kerdi eksplanacia.

8. Khate si jekh situacia kaj jekh djeno sas athado te phagarel o zakono soske jekh publichno autoriteto sas protektuime(arakhado) ande pesko phageripen.

E Krissesko gandipen savo sas pe e palutneski rig, thaj nasulipe kerdias e angluneske, si, me pakiav, bilaches. Jekh Kriss vash e Manushenge Chachimata savi pakial ke jekh autoriteto kerdias buti "pala o zakono"feri si klaro ke phagerdias o zakono, kerel jekh maj but bilacho dikhipen pe el prindjarde ethichne(gogiake) niveluria (leveluria).

IV. Praktichno akcia

Ande individualne kasuria:

4.1 Pakiaindos pesko krissipen pe le themeski "buxli dikhimaski marginea" kana te lel e decizia kana o chachipen si mashkar e Romenge chachipena thaj e bare komunitateake interesuria, e Evropako Kriss phenel ke kasave phare decizienge planifikacie si te aven line katar e themutne Krissuria, thaj feri kana lenge decizie chi avena lache atunchi e Kriss katar Strasbourg musaj te avel preparime te kerel intervencia.

4.2 Phendas pes kaj e Kriss katar o Strasbourg chi pakial kaj o tratamento e romanego ando UK chi sas lacho(kodoleske sar phendas pes maj anglal ke kodo tratamento sas "rovimasko"(but bilacho). Kado si ke e themutne Krissuria chi dashtin te garaven pes pala i decizia. Von trebul von bari brigasa te len decizia pe kasave kasuria thaj chi trebul te mekhen e autoritatenge kasavi buxli dikhimaski marginea sar mekhel e Kriss andar o Strasbourg.

Kasuria save si len konekcia thanenca save na-j "sensitivne thana"

4.3 O kaso Chapman savo dikhelas po buxljaripen ande specifichne sensitivne thana, prindjardo ando UK sar "Zeleno xaravli" ( e kolaver shtar kasuria kaj sas pe phralne "protektuime thana" vaj thana kaj, o UK fal man, othe sas aver lache thana andar e Roma). Esencialno si ke ando plano si but vashno te kerel pes asiguracia ke e foruria andar o UK chi buxliarel pes ande pashutne gavenge thana. E rajuni Chapmna kamlias te thol peski karavana ande jekh anadra e maj protektuime thana, e Zeleno Xaravli pashutnes London, kaj aba chi jekh bararimos naj mekhlo. Avel ke e krisseski decisia si maj but birelevanto sar ande kasuria kaj propunime bararimata te aven pe thana kaj naj vashne.

Kasuria ande save e fakturia sas aver sar ando Chapman kaso

4.4 E madjoritatea nadar e Kris zuraradas ke e krisseski buti si te alosarel e poltikaki implementacia ande praktika, thaj phenel:

Vi kana kana san membro jekhe minoritateako savi tradicionalno trail(djivel) aver sar e madjoritatea anadr e komunitatea chi kerel pes protekcia katar e themeske zakonuria save protektuin lachimata e savorrenge sar si e thana, shaj avel bilaches soske kasave zakonuria si te aven implementuime. Sar xakiardas pes andar o Buckley krissipen, e but sensitivno situacia e romengi sar minoriteto si ke soske von aver train(djiven) trebul te avel specialno dikhle ande normalne situacie vi kana lel pes decisia ande partikularne kasuria. Dji akana si jekh positivno musajpen katar e Kontraktuime Thema sar ando 8 to Kotor te lokhiaren e romengo djivipen.

4.5 Si trin vashne principura save shaj aven baza pala kava gindipen:

jekhto, e sherujmaski kriteria vash e alosarde individualno planifikaciake mangimata kaj si pe Roma o problemo shaj trebul te avel aver sar kodola kaj si pe gadje. dujto, e Kriss si te lel sama but seriosno pe savore bilachimata(bichachimata) save avena kana kerela pes e implementacia katar e permisiengi planifikacia. Kado sas ando Varey v. UK rovipen. Ande kado kaso, o lokalno krissari (prindjardo ando UK sar "Planifikaciako Inspektori") kerdias investigacia(rodias) pe kodo rovipen thaj lias i decizia ke lenge musaj si te den than. O Ministro, orisar, phagerdas kodi decizia. O Guverno katar UK kamlas zurales kaj (soske e Romane kasuria but sensitivno si) e Evropako Kriss vash e Manushikane Chachimata chi kerdas toleracia vash kodo bichachimasko kaso. Pe kodo kaso lias pes jekh amalni decizia - pokindile e legalne pokinimata thaj dias pes 60 000 (pounds) kompensacia, thaj o manush savo rujas pes kamlas kadi decizia. trito ke e Kriss shaj kerel intervencia ande jekh kaso kaj e mukikasko proceso si aver sar ande Buckley vaj Chapman kasuria. Sar misialake, kana e akcia mamuj/protiv o ilegalno baraiaripen kerel te lel pes e karavana, te peren phandade, vaj te mukil len othar bi te del len aver than kaj te beshen etc. E maj buxli politikanio akcia

4.6 E Romane organizacie musaj si te keren presia pe Evropake Governuria te len positivno akcia te keren pala e mashkarthemutne musajmata(obligacie) vash e minoriteturia, thaj atunchi kadala shaj aven akceptuime ande praktika katar e maj but Thema Membruria.

4.7 Si jekh vriamaki problema dji kana e Kriss arakhel jekh phageripen ande kasuria sar kadala. Kado shaj avel 4, 5 bersha maj palal, feri kana jekh kaso kaj partikularno zorake fakturia arakhel pes, atunchi e vriama shaj avel maj xarni. Kodoleske si musaj savore Governonge te len akcia te lacharen o akceso e Romengo ko lacho beshipen ande khera. Ande UK, e Romane organizacie line iniciativa anda kado thaj kerde preparacia pe jehk zakonosko proposal(?) " Zakonoski Reforma vash e Manusha save phiren" thaj roden te avel akceptuime katar o Parlamento.

4.8 E propunime zakonuria chi roden specialno tratamento vash e Roma. Si aver sar roden te phagaren e legalne thaj administrativne praktike save indirektno kerel diskriminacia vash e Roma ando UK. Kadia buxliarel e Governoske dimata vash o publichno kherengo keripen te den pes love vash e thana kaj e Roma te thon peske karavani. Sa kadia, si legalne provisie vash i edukacia, mukipen, planifikacia, cifliarenge zora, rasialno diskriminacia etc.
=====================================================================================

Maškarthemutno Pakto pala e Ekonomikake,Sociale thaj Kulturake Čačipa - Romani language translation of the International Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

4 June 2004

Angluno alav/svato

E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto, gindosa, ande relacia pala e konvencia Jekhethaneske naciengi, kaj si e manušesko digniteto leske čačipa baza pala e sloboda ,pakiv thaj čačipe ande sasti luma, respektosa kaj kadala čačipa aven andar e manušesko digniteto thaj manušesko personaliteto, respektosa kaj ande relacia Univerzalnone Deklaraciasa pala e manušikane čačipa, ideali pala o slobodo manuš, savo si slobodo katar e dar thaj čoripe, šaj kerel pes numaj te si kerdine kondicie save den svakone te utilizil pire:ekonomikane, sociale thaj kulturake čačipa, sar vi pire civile thaj politikake čačipa, gindosa kaj Jekhethaneske Naciengi Konvencia tradel e themen te respektuin manušikane čačipa thaj slobode, gindosa kaj svakone manuše si responsabiliteto pala aver manuš thaj pala o komuniteto ande savo trail thaj kaj trubul te vazdel opre/anglunarel e čačipa andar kava Pakto, jekhe glasosa vazde opre kadala kotora:

I
Kotor 1.

1. Svakone theme si čačipe te korkore-vojasa vazdel o decizji sar kamel te trail.Ande relacia pala kava čačipe von slobodo šaj arakhen piro politikako statuso thaj te keren piro agrikulturako,socialo thaj kulturako buxljaripe.

2. Po drom te realizuin/keren kadale areslipa,svako them šaj slobodo te utilizil pire naturale barvalipa.Khonik našti lel e themestar kodola barvalipa savestar kodo them trail.

3. E themen save somnisarde kava Pakto si obligacia te den šaipe e nacienge te realizuin pire čačipa ande relacia pala e paragrafura andar e Jekhethaneski Deklaracia.

II
Kotor 2.

1. Svakone theme savo somnisarda kava Pakto si obligacia te kerel sa so šaj, sar korkore kade vi maškar maškarthemutno ažutipe thaj kooperacia specialo pe ekonomikako thaj tehnikako plano, po drom te apsoluto realizuin pes e čačipa andar kava Pakto.

2. E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto lie pe peste obligacia te garantuin kaj čačipa save si ramome/skrinisarde kate ka realizuin pes bi diskriminaciako savi si bazirime pe rasa,kolori,religia politikako vaj aver gindipe.

3. E thema save naj kade barvale,ande relacia pala piri nacionalo agrikultura, trubun te dikhen sode šaj garantuin e ekonomikake čačipa andar kava Pakto e manušenge save avile andar varesavo aver them.

Kotor 3.

E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto lie pe peste obligacia te den egalutno šaipe e muršenge thaj e džuvljenge te utilizin sa e ekonomikake, sociale thaj kulturake čačipa save si šuvdine ande kava Pakto.

Kotor 4.

E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto šaj keren limito pala kadale čačipa numaj ande relacia pala o zakono po drom te šukarel pes thaj barvarel pes o demokratikano societato.

Kotor 5.

1. Či jekh paragrafo andar kava Pakto našti xatjarel pes kade kaj del šaipe,varesave themese,grupake vaj manušese čačipe, te kerel varesavi buti savi šaj litjharel e čačipa thaj e slobode andar kava Pakto.

2. Khanikase či ka del pes te kerel varesavo limito vaj te opril manušikane čačipa kade kaj ka phenel kaj o Pakto či respektuil len sar godo kerel e themesko zakono.

III
Kotor 6.

1. Thema save somnisarde kava Pakto respektuin o čačipe pe buti,savo del svakone manušese šaipe te kerel pese e love pala o trajo katar e buti savi slobodo alosarda,thaj ka keren e aktiviteta te protektuin kava čačipe.

2. E aktiviteta save ka keren e thema save somnisarde kava Pakto ka intjarel ande peste vi e manušengi edukacia pala e buti savi von kamen te keren,politikake thaj tehnikane aktiviteta save šaj vazden opre agrikulturako,societatosko thaj kulturako buxljaripe, telal e kondicie save den šaipe e manušenge te avel len lenge politikane thaj ekonomikane slobode.

Kotor 7.

E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto den svakone manušese egalutne butjaripaske kondicie sar:

a) maj bare love svakone manušese savo kerel lačhi buti:

1) egalutno butjarimasko pokinipe vaj egalutne bareder love pala sa e manuša save keren egalutni buti bi diferenciako;specialo džuvljange trubun te garantuin pes kondicie save či troman te aven maj bilačhe katar e kondicie saven si e muršen.

2) Normalo trajo pala butjarimaske manuša thaj lenge familije ande relacia pala e paragrafura kadale Paktosko;

b) protekcia thaj higijenikane kondicie pala e buti;
c) egalutno šaipe pala svako manuš te džal maj dur ande piri buti te avel les maj bari kategoria;
d) vakacia, slobodo vrama lačhi butjarimaski vrama thaj pokin kana o manuš našti jekh vrama kerel buti sar vi specialo pokinipe pala e themeske bare djesa.

Kotor 8.

1. E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto lie pe peste obligacia te den:

a) čačipe svakonese te avere manušenca kerel sindikatura, te lel than korkorevojako ande sindikatura thaj kava šaipe šaj avel limitirime katar e organizaciako zakono.Kava šaipe šaj avel limitirime vi katar e themengo zakono so vi trubul ande jekh demokratikano societato po drom te protektuil pes nacionalo sekuritato vaj avere manušenge slobode.
b) čačipe sindikaturengo te keren nacionale federacie vaj konfederacie thaj čačipe kadale federaciengo vaj konfederaciengo te keren maškarthemutne sindikale organizacie vaj te len than ande lende;
c) čačipe e sindikatonengo te slobodo keren piri buti bi limitosko.Te si limitura von šaj keren pes numaj ando intereso e themesko te protekuil pes o nacionalo sekuritato vaj te protektuin pes e čačipa thaj e slobode avere manušengo;
d) čačipe po štrajko, numaj vov šaj kerel pes kade te avel ande relacia pala o zakono e themengo.

2.Kava kotor či opril te keren pes zakonengere limitura save realizuin e policia vaj e themeske institucie.

3. Či jekh paragrafo andar kava kotor či del šaipe e themen save somnisarde e Konvencia Maškarthemune Butjarimaske Organizaciaki andar 1948-to berš pala e sindikale slobode thaj protekcia sindikale čačipengo te keren e zakoneske aktivitetura save si bilačhe pala opre ramosardini Konvencia.

Kotor 9.

E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto ka den svakonese čačipe pe socialo protekcia thaj vi o socialo sekuritato.

Kotor 10.

E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto khetane vazde opre kaj:

1. Maj bari protekcia thaj ažutipe trubul te del pes e familijake,savi si maj importanto kotor e societatosko,specialo kana e familija trubul te kerel pes thaj dži kaj si voj responsabilo te bararel pire čhavren.O prandipe šaj kerel pes numaj kana godo kamel vi o murš vi e džuvli.

2. Specialo protekcia trubul te del pes e dejange ande vrama anglal o bijandipe thaj palal o bijandipe.Ande kava vramako periodo e dejan ka avel pokin bi butjarimasko vaj ka del pes lenge socialo sekuritato.

3. Speciale ažutipaske vaj protekciake aktivitetura pala sa čhavre thaj terne manuša bi diskriminaciako. E čhavre trubun te aven protektuime po drom te khonik našti utilizil len. Von našti keren buti pe thana save si bilačhe pala lengo morali thaj sastipe. E manuša save kava keren ka aven došardine anglal o zakono. E thema trubun te keren vi jekh beršengo limito thaj te varesave čhavre naj kodole berša vov našti kerel buti.

Kotor 11.

1. E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto ka den šaipe svakones po traimasko/dživdipasko standardo savo si lačho leske thaj leske familijake,lačho xabe,kher,gada thaj sa maj lačhe traimaske kondicie.E thema save somnisrade kava Pakto ka keren e aktivitetura te realizuin kadala čačipa.

2. E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto gindosa kaj svakones si čačipe te na avel bokhalo ka keren aktivitetura thaj programura:
a) te vazden opre e metode pala e xamaski produkcia thaj prezervacia.E thema ka utilizin sa e tehnikane džanipa, ka sikaven so si godo sasto xabe thaj ka buxljaren e agrare sistemura.
b) te so maj lačhe paruden o xabe samasa pe problemura ande thema save si membrura kadale Paktosko kade vi ande thema katar avel o xabe.

Kotor 12.

E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto den šaipe svakone manušese te avel les lačho fizikano thaj societatosko sastipe.

E aktivitetura save e thema ka keren si :

a) ciknjaripe e gendosko(numbresko)cikne chavengoro save meren;
b) šukaripe pala e industriaki higiena thaj pala e manušesko trujalipe;
c) opripe thaj sastaripe nasvalipengo;
d) keripe šukare kondiciengo te svakone manušese šaj žutil o sastarno(doktori).

Kotor 13.

E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto respektuin čačipe svakone manušesko pe edukacia(sikavipe) thaj kadi edukacia trubul te žutil te o manuš vazdel pes thaj te vazdel piro digniteto.E thema khetane vazde opre kaj e edukacia del šaipe svakonese te khelel lačhi rola ando slobodo societato,kaj del šaipe pala o xatrjaripe thaj amalipe maškar e nacie thaj politikake vaj religiake grupe thaj te žutil e butji Jekhethaneske Naciengo.

E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto po drom te realizuin godo so si opre phendino khetane vazde opre:

# e cikni(elementarno) edukacia si obligacia pala svako manuš thaj kadi edukacia či pokinel pes;
# e maškarni edukacia trubul svakonese te avel muklini ande relacia pala e manušenge kondicie thaj godo trubul te avel bi lovengo;
# e cikni (elementaro) edukacia trubul te ispidel pes sode šaj thaj specialo trubul te del pes šaipe te agorin kadi cikni edukacia e manuša saven naj sas šaipe maj anglal;
# ka buxljarel pes e školaki ambrela pe sa levela thaj ka kerel pes lačho sistemo pala e stipendie;
# e thema save somnisarde kava Pakto ka respektuin e sloboda e manušenge te alosaren pala lenge čhavre vi aver škole save naj ande themesko sistemo thaj save si ande relacia pala o themesko zakono;

Či jekh paragrafo andar kava Pakto či trubul te xatjarel pes kade kaj či del pes sloboda varesave manušenge te keren škole numaj von trubun te aven ande relacia pala e themengo zakono.

Kotor 14.

Svakone theme saves ando momento kana somnil kava Pakto naj šaipe te del bi lovengo elementaro edukacia lel pe peste obligacia te ande duj beršengi vrama/periodo kerel o plano savo džal po drom te realizuil kadi obligacia.

Kotor 15.

1.E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto den svakonese čačipe:

a) te lel than ande kulturako dživdipe/trajo,
b) te xatjarel o barvalipe katar e scienstikano anglunipe,
c) te o manuš kerda varesavi pustik/kniška vaj artistikano produkto vov šaj godo vi te utilizil.(šaj rodel vaj lel love pala godo)

2. E aktiviteta save e thema kaj somnisarde kava Pakto ka keren po drom te realizuin kadala čačipa si e protekcia thaj buxljaripe pala e sciencia thaj kultura.

3.E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto lie pe peste obligacia te respektuin e sloboda savi si importanto pala e scienstikano rodipe thaj kreativo buti.

4.E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto dikhen savo si barvalipe savo avel opre andar e kooperacia ando fremo e kulturako thaj scienciako.

IV
Kotor 16.

1. E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto lie pe peste obligacia te ande relacia pala e pragrafura e Paktoske den raporto pala e aktiviteta save kerde thaj vi ande relacia pala o anglunipe e čačipengo andar o Pakto.

2.a) Sa e raportura ka bičhalen pes e general sekretareske Jekhethaneske Naciengo savo maj dur ka tradel kadala raportura po Ekonomikano thaj Socialo Konzilo te von keren lengi analiza.
b) O Generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske Naciengo ka del vi varesave institucienge e raportura vaj kotora e raporturenge save si bičhaldine katar e thema save somnisarde kava Pakto.

Kotor 17.

1. E thema save si membrura kadale Paktosko den raportura katar e vrama pe vrama sar godo phenel o Ekonomikano thaj Socialo Konzilo ande jekh beršengo periodo/vrama katar o djes kana kava Pakto avilo pe čači zor.

2. E raportura šaj sikaven so si e pharipa save či den e themen šaipe te keren e obligacie andar kava Pakto.

3. Te si e informacie maj anglal tradine Jekhethaneske Nacienge vaj varesave instituciake katar varesavo them vov či trubul vadži jekhvar godo te kerel,numaj trubul te phenel kaj godo kerda.

Kotor 18.

O Ekonomikano thaj Socialo Konzilo šaj kerel kontraktura e speciale institucienca te von keren thaj traden raportura,savo si ande relacia pala o anglunaripe sar respektuin pes e paragrafura andar kava Pakto.Kadale raportura šaj intjaren ande peste e informacie pala e decizja thaj rekomodacie save vazde opre e organura andar e specialenge instituciengo.

Kotor 19.

Ekonomikano thaj Socialo Konzilo šaj tradel e Komisiake pala e manušikane čačipa e raportura pala e manušikane čačipa save svako them tradel ande relacia pala o kotor 16. thaj 17. sar vi e raportura pala e manušikane čačipa save den speciale institucie ande relacia pala o kotor 18.

Kotor 20.

E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto thaj e speciale institucie šaj den sugestie e Ekonomikake thaj Sociale Konziloske pe svako rekomodacia ande relacia pala o kotor 19, vaj pe svako akharipe pe rekomodacia savo si šuvdino ando raporto e Komisiako pala e manušikane čačipa vaj ande svako dokumento savo si sikadino ando raporto.

Kotor 21.

Ekonomikano thaj socialo konzilo šaj del katar e vrama pe vrama Generalnone Parlamentoske raportura save intjaren ande peste generale rekomodacie thaj cikni introdukcia e informaciengi akceptuime katar e thema save somnisarde kava Pakto thaj katar speciale institucie pala e aktivitetura save keren pes po drom te respektuin pes manušikane čačipa andar kava Pakto.

Kotor 22.

Ekonomikano thaj Socialo Konzilo šaj tradel avere organuren Jekhethaneske Naciengo,ažutimaske organuren andar e Jekhethaneske Nacie,speciale institucien pe svako pučipe savo vazden opre e raportura sikadine ande kava kotor e Paktosko thaj savo šaj žutil kadale organenge/institucienge te phenen sarsave trubun te aven e maškarthemutne aktivitetura save šaj ažutin te kerel pes implementacia kadale Paktoski.

Kotor 23.

E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto čhinade pes maškar peste te e aktivitetura saven si maškarthemutno karakteri thaj save kamen te vazden opre e manušikane čačipa andar o Pakto intjaren ande peste vi e metode sar keripe e konvenciengo,keripe rekomodaciengo/ advetonengo, tehnikano ažutipe, khetane e governonca save kamen,khetanipe po regionalo levelo po drom te den pes advetura/rekomodacie thaj te kerel pes analiza.

Kotor 24.

Či jekh paragrafo andar kava Pakto našti xatjarel pes sar bilačhipe pala e Jekhethaneske Naciengi Konvencia thaj maj bare zakonengo speciale instituciengo save šuven po than e relacia thaj responsabiliteto varesave organurengo Jekhethaneske Naciengo thaj speciale instituciengo ande relacia pala e pučipa save vazdel opre kava Pakto.

Kotor 25.

Či jekh paragrafo kadale Paktosko či trubul te xatjarel pes sar čimuklipe varesave naciake te utilizil pire naturale barvalipa.

V
Kotor 26.

1. Kava Pakto si putardo pala o somnipe svakone themese savo si membro Jekhethaneske Naciengo vaj membronge lenge speciale institucienge,svakone themese savo somnisarda statuto Maškarthemutne Čačipaske Krisosko sar vi svakone avere themese kas akharel o Generalo Parlamento Jekhethaneske Naciengo te avel membro kadale Paktosko.

2. Kava Pakto trubul te ratufikuil pes.Ratifikaciake instrumentura ka aven deponuime ka Generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo.

3. Kava Pakto ka avel putardino pala o lethanipe svakone themese savo si ande relacia pala o paragrafo 1. kadale kotoresko.

4. O lethanipe/dženutnipe ka kerel pes kana deponuin pes e instrumentura pala o lethanipe ka Generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo.

5. Generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo ka informišil sa e themen save somnisarde kava Pakto sar thaj ko deponuisarda e instrumentura pala e ratifikacia.

Kotor 27.

1. Kava Pakto ka avel pe čači zor kana deponuil pes ka Generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske Naciengo tranda thaj pandžto instrumenti pala e ratifikacia thaj lethanipe.

2. Pala svako them savo ratifikuil kava Pakto vaj lel than ande leste kana anel pes o tranda thaj pandžto instrumento pala e ratifikacia thaj lethanipe ,les (e Pakto) ka avel čači zor trin čhon katar o djes kana godo them deponuil e instrumentura pala e ratifikacia thaj lethanipe.

Kotor 28.

Paragrafura kadale Paktosko ka utilizin pes pe svako kotor jekhe themesko bi limitosko.

Kotor 29.

1. Svako them savo somnisarda kava Pakto šaj del sugestia te parudel pes vaj ramol pes/skrinil pes vareso maj but ando teksto thaj te del pes generalne sekretarese Jekhethaneske naciengo.Generalo sekretari ka bičhalel kadale nevipa sa e themenge save somnisarde kava Pakto thaj ka rodel lendar te phenen kamen vaj na te keren khetanipe pe savo ka dikhen si kadale nevipa lačhe vaj na.Te maj cerra/minimum duj trite kotora e themengo save si membrura phenen kaj kamen te keren kava khetanipe o Generalo sekretari ka kerel konferencia ando fremo Jekhethaneske naciengo.Svako parudipe vaj nevipe savo akceptuil but thema thaj savo lel than ando alosaripe trubul maj palal te akceptuil pes vi katar o generalo parlamento Jekhethaneske naciengo.

2. Kadala parudipa vaj nevipa ka aven pe čači zor kana aven akceptuime katar o Generalo Parlamento Jekhethaneske naciengo thaj akceptuime katar duj trite kotora e themengo save somnisarde kava Pakto.

3. Kana kadale parudipa thaj nevipa aven pe čači zor von si obligacia pala sa e thema save akceptuisarde kava,aver thema ka akceptuin numaj e paragrafura kadale Paktoske thaj parudipe vaj nevipe save von akceptuisarde maj anglal.

Kotor 30.

Na ande relacia e vakaripenca andar o paragrafo 5. kotor 26, o generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske Naciengo ka informišil sa e themen save trubul ande relacia pala o paragrafo 1. kadale kotoresko:

a) pala e somnura save si šuvdine po kava Pakto thaj ratifikaciake instrumentura ande relacia pala o kotor 26,
b) pala e datumura/djesa kana kava Pakto avel pe čači zor ande relacia pala o kotor 27. thaj pala o datumo kana kerda pes svako parudipe vaj nevipe andar o kotor 29.

Kotor 31.

1. Kava pakto savo si nakhadino pe:Anglikani, Kinezikani, Španjolikani, Francikani thaj Rusikani čhib ka avel deponuime ande arhiva Jekhethaneske Naciengo.

2. Generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske Naciengo ka bičhalel e kopie kadale Paktosko svakone themese ande relacia pala o kotor 26.
=====================================================================================

Konvencia Pala O Statuso Naąalde manuąengo - Romani language translation of the substantive paragraphs of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“1951 Geneva Convention”) and its 1967 New York Protocol.

4 June 2004

Foro Ženeva, 28-to jul 1951-to berš

E thema save čhinade pes,

# gindosa kaj o Šerutno lil Jekhethaneske Naciengo thaj e Generalo Deklaracia pala e manušenge čačipa, save po 10-to decembri 1948-to berš akceptuisarda/mukla o Generalo kidipe, vazde opre o principo kaj e manuša, bi diferenciako, trubun te utilizin manušenge čačipa thaj bazikane slobode,
# gindosa kaj e Organizacia Jekhethaneske Naciengo butivar sikada sar lel sama pe našalde manuša thaj kaj kadalesa kamla te del šaipe te svako utilizil manušikane čačipa thaj bazikane slobode,
# gindosa kaj avelas lačhe te e purane maškar-themutne kontraktura pala o statuso našalde manušengo avel revidirime thaj kodifikuime thaj te e neve kontraktosa buxljarel pes e utilizacia kadale instrumentongo thaj protekcia pala e našalde manuša,
# gindosa kaj o dinipe čačipasko po azilo šaj keren bare pharipa pala varesave thema thaj kaj phagav-ipe e problemosko našti kerel pes bi maškar-themutne ažutipasko, kamipasa te sa thema save akceptuisarde socialo thaj humanitaro karakteri e problemosko pala e našalde manuša keren sa so šaj po dromm te kava na kerel problemo mašakar e thema, džanglipasa kaj o Baro Komesari Jekhethaneske Naciengo pala e našalde manuša lel sama sar utilizin pes e maškarthemutne konvencie save protektuin e našalde manušen, khetane phangle:

JEKTO ŠERUTNO KOTOR

Generale Paragrafura

Kotor 1

Ko si o našaldo manuš

A. Ande relacia pala kadi konvencia, anav “našaldo manuš“ ka utilizil pes pe svako manuš:

1. Savo dikhla pes sar našaldo ande relacia pala e aranžmanura katar o 12- to maj 1926-to berš thaj 30- to jun 1928-to berš,vaj ande relacia pala e Konvencie katar 28-to oktobri 1933- to berš thaj 10-to februari 1938-to berš thaj Protokoli katar 14-to septembri 1939- to berš vaj ande relacia pala o Maj Baro Zakono Maškarthemutne organizaciako pala e Našalde Manuša.

E decizja save vazda opre e Maškarthemutni organizacia pala e našalde manuša ande vrama kana sasa lako mandato či oprin te statuso sar našalde manušengo len e manuša save peren telal e kondicie ande relacia pala o paragrafo 2 kadale kotoresko;

2. Save, džanglipasa so sasa maj anglal 1-tone januarosko 1951-tone beršesko thaj daratar kaj ka aven tradine kaj si aver rasa, kaj si len aver religia, etnikani bučim, politikano gindipe, šaj arakhen pes ando them savesko themutnipe si les thaj savo daratar či kamel te rodel protekcia kodole themesko; vaj savo, te naj les themutnipe pal naj ando them kaj permanento dživdil daratar či kamel te iril pes/avel palpale ande godo them.

Te e manuše si maj but katar jekh themutnipe definicia” them kasko themutnipe si les” ande relacia si pala svako them kasko themutnipe godole manuše si. Či ka gindil pes kaj si lindi protekcia e themeski kasko themutnipe e manuše si, svako manuš savo či roda protekcia jekhe themeske kasko themutnipe si les.

B.

1) Ande relacia pala kadi konvencia definicia “sa godo so sasa maj anglal 1-tone januaresko 1951-tone beršesko ”savo si ramosardino ando kotor 1, paragrafo A, šaj xatjaren pes sar:

a) godo so sasa maj anglal 1951-tone januar-esko ande Europa; vaj

b) godo so sasa maj anglal 1-tone januaresko 1951-tone beršesko ande Europa thaj maj dur; thaj svako them ka, kana del piro somno, ratifikacia, phenel sode si importante kadale definicie godolese kaj andar kadale definicie aven avri/inkljen vi obligacie save e thema len pe peste pe baza kadale konvenciaki.

2) Svako them savo lia than ande kadi konvencia thaj savi alosarda e definicia a) šaj alosarel vi definicia b) notifikaciasa savi ka bičhalel Generalnone sekretarese Jekh ethaneske naciengo.

C. Kadi konvencia ka, ande tele sikadine/ramosardine kazura, ačhel te utilizil pes pe svako manuš savo si ande relacia e paragrafurenca andar o kotor A:

1) te vov korkore-vojako vadži/inke jekhvar roda protekcia e themesko kasko themutnipe si les; vaj

2) te o manuš, savo xasarda themutnipe kodole themesko vadži jekhvar pire vojako lel les; vaj

3) te e manuše si nevo themutnipe thaj kava them vi protektuil les; vaj

4) te o manuš korkore-vojako irisajlo/avilo palapale ando them andar savo djelo godolese kaj sas les dar kaj ka avel tradino; vaj

5) te si e situacia ande savo o manuš sasa akceptuime sar našaldo phagardini, vov našti vi maj dur opril protekcia e themeski kasko themutnipe si les;

Gindosa kaj e kadale paragrafura či ka utilizin pes pe svako našaldo manuš pala savo vakarel pes ando paragrafo 1. somno A kadale kotoresko savo šaj, po drom te opril protekcia e themeski kasko themutnipe si les, sikavel sar kava them maj anglal trada les;

6) te e manuše naj themutnipe pal situacia, ande savo vov lia te avel našaldo, nakhli vov šaj te iril pes/džal palpale ando them ande savo bešla maj anglal.

Gindosa kaj kadale paragrafura či ka utilizin pes pe svako našaldo manuš pala savo vakarel pes ando paragrafo 1. somno A kadale kotoresko savo šaj, te či kamel te iril pes ando them ando savo maj anglal bešla, sikavel sar si tradino ande angluni vrama andar kava them.

D. Kadi konvencia či ka utilizil pes pe manuša saven si akana protekcia varesave organurengo vaj insituciako Jekhethaneske naciengo sar vi e protekcia Bare komesaresko Jekhethaneske Naciengo pala e našalde manuša.

Kana kadi protekcia ačhel pal o problemo kadale manušengo naj phagardino, ande relacia pala e rezolucie save vazda opre o Generalo kidipe Jekhethaneske naciengo pala našalde manuša, kadale manuša šaj utilizin o režimo kadale konvenciako.

E. Kadi Konvencia či ka utilizil pes pe manuša pala save o them kaj kava manušbešel gindil kaj si les čačipa sar vi averen ande godo them.

F. Paragrafura kadale Konvenciako či ka utilizin pes pe manuša pala save gindil pes:

a) kaj kerde varesavo džungalipe kontra e pakiv, maripasko džungalipe vaj kriminaliteto kontra o manušipe;

b) kaj kerde baro kriminaliteto kontra maškar-themutno čačipe avral e themesko savo mukla len pe piri phuv maj anglal deso si mukline ande godi phuv sar našalde manuša;

c) kaj kerde džungalipa save si kontra e ares-lipanca Jekhethaneske naciengo.

Kotor 2 – Generale obligacie

Svakone našalde manuše si obligacie pala o them kaj bešel thaj specialo si les obligacie pala e zakonura thaj paragrafura save len sama pala o oficielo trajo.

Kotor 3 – Nadiskriminacia

E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka utilizuin lake paragrafura bi diskriminaciako ande relacia pala o kolori, religia vaj etnikano bučim.

Kotor 4 – Religia

E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka utilizuin egalutno zakono pe našalde manuša save si pe lengi teritoria sar vi pala pire manuša ande relacia pala e sloboda thaj religia.

Kotor 5 – Dinde čačipa save naj ande relacia pala kadi konvencia

Či jekh paragrafo andar kadi konvencia naj ande relacia avere čačipenca dinde našalde manušenge avere dokumentonca.

Kotor 6 – Telal egalutne kondicie

Ande relacia pala kadi konvecia vakaripe ”telal egalutne kondicie ” si kana sa e kondicie (specialo kodola save si ande relacia pala o bešipasko than, kondicie pala o bešipe ando them) save jekh manuš trubul te kerel po drom te utiulzuil o čačipe pala savo vakarel pes,trubun te keren pes numaj či trubun te keren pes kodole kondicie save jekh našaldo manuš našti kerel.

Kotor 7 – Bi reciprocitetosko

1. Telal e rezerva maj lačhe paragrafurengi planirime kadale konvenciasa, svako them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia ka uzilituil o režimo (ande relacia pala e našalde manuša) savo generalo utilizil vi pala averthemeske manuša/strenura.

2. Kana nakhen trin berša sa e našalde manuša save si pe teritoria e themengi save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka aven slobode katar o zakonesko reciprociteto.

3. Svako them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia vi maj dur ka del našalde manušenge čačipa pe save len vi sasa pretenzia po djes kana kadi konvencia avel pe čači zor ande godo them.

4. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia pherde ilesa ka len sama po šaipe te e našalde manušenge den, kana naj reciprociteto, maj but čačipa katar godola pe save len si pretenzia ande relacia pala o paragrafo 2, 3 sar vi šaipe te e našalde manuša save našti keren e kondicie save si ramosardine ande paragrafura 2 thaj 3 šaj aven slobode katar o reciprociteto.

5. Lekharipe/ramosaripe andar e oprune paragrafura 2 thaj 3 utilzuin pes vi pe čačipa pala save vakarel pes ande kotora 13,18,19,21 thaj 22 kadale konvenciako sar vi pe čačipa save naj ramopsardine ande late.

Kotor 8 – Sloboda katar e speciale aktivitetura

Te keren pes varesave speciale aktivitetura kontra varesave manuša andar varesavo them e thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia či ka keren kadale aktivitetura pe našalde manuša save si vi formalo andar godo them numaj kaj si les godo themutnipe. E thema save somnisarde kadi Konvencia save našti utilizin generalo gindipe savo si ramosardino ande kava kotor ka muken ande varesave kazura e našalde manušen.

Kotor 9 – Cerra/zala vramake aktivitetura

Či jekh paragrafo andar kadi konvencia naj sar areslipe te opril varesave theme savo somnisarda kadi konvencia, kana si o maripe vaj ande varesavi aver specialo vrama, te kerel pe jekh vrama aktivitetura save kadava them gindil kaj trubun te keren pes po drom te arakhel pes nacionalo sekuritato.

Kotor 10 – Continuity of residence

1. Te sasa o našaldo manuš deportuime (tradino andar piro them) kana sasa o dujto themesko maripe thaj te sasa tradino pe teritoria e themaski savi somnisarda kadi konvencia thaj te akana gothe trail, e vrama savi vov bešla sar tradino manuš ka dikhel pes sar vi e vrama savi vov bešla sar vi aver.

2. te sasa varesavo našaldo manuš deprotuime katar e teritoria e themeski savi somnisarda kadi konvencia kana sasa o dujto themesko maripe thaj irisajlo/avilo palapale ande godo them maj anglal deso kadi konvencia avili pe čači zor te ande godo them trail, e vramako periodo maj anglal e dportacia sar vi o periodo palal e deportacia ka dikhel pes sar permanento bešipe ande godo them.

Kotor 11 – Refugee seamen

Mornara sar našalde manuša Te e našalde manuša sajekh/permanento keren buti sar membrura pe varesavo pajesko kaštuno vurdon pe savo si šuvdino o flago varesave themesko savo somnisarda e konvencia godo them pherde ilesa ka dikhel sar te arakhel varesavo šaipe te muken pes te train pe lengi teritoria thaj te del lenge personale lila vaj pe jekh vrama te mukel len pe piri teritoria spcialo godolese te lokharel lengo kamipe te ždan ande varesavo aver them.

DUJTO ŠERUTNO KOTOR

Juristikano statuso

Kotor 12 – Personalo statuso

1. Personalo statuso svakone našalde manušesko ka regulišil pes zakonosa e themesko savo si lesko domocilo vaj te naj o domicilo zakonesa e themeske kaj akana bešel.

2. Svako them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia ka respektuil e čačipa save sesa e našalde manuše thaj save aven avri andar personalo statuso, specialo kodola save aven kana e manuša prandin pes, rezervasa, te godo trubul, te keren pes e formalite-tura save si ande relacia e zakonosa kodole themesko numaj trubul te džanel pes kaj o čačipe,savo si opre ramosardino, trubul te avel katar kodola čačipa save trubun te aven akceptuime katar o juristikano them te o manuš saves si intereso pala kava či avilo našaldo.

Kotor 13 – Mobilo thaj namobilo pala dadesko barvalipe

E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka keren so maj lačhi procedura e našalde manušenge sar godo keren vi averthemenge manušenge ande relacia pala o mobilo thaj namobilo paladadesko barvalipe.

Kotor 14 – Intelektualo thaj industrikano manušesko barvalipe

Ande relacia pala e protekcia/arakhipe indstrikane manušeske barvalipasko specialo pala varesave pilte, fabrikake somnura, komerciale anava, ande relacia pala e protekcia lilengi/kniške/pustika, artistikane thaj saensistikane manušeske barvalipasko, e našalde manušen ka avel (ando them kaj bešen) egalutno tretmano sar vi averen. Pe teritoria savi si e themeski savo somnisarda kadi konvencia kadale našalde manušen ka avel egalutno čačipen sar vi si e manušen save ave andar godo them kaj bešel o našaldo manuš.

Kotor 15 – Čačipe po khetanipe

E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka keren egalutni procedura pala e našalde manuša sar vi pe averthemeske manuša te von kamen te keren varesavo amalipe save naj politikano areslipe thaj save naj lukretivo. Kade ka avel vi te kamen te keren sindikatura.

Kotor 16 – Čačipe te sikaven pes anglal o krisi

1. Svakone našalde manuše ka avel, pe teritoria e themeski savo somnisarda kadi konvencia, slobodo thaj lokho akseso anglal e krisura.

2. Ando them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia, kaj o našaldo manuš sajekh bešel, ka avel les egalutni procedura sar vi avere manušen ande relacia pala o akseso anglal o krisi, sar vi krisikano ažutipe thaj sloboda katar cautio judicatum solvi.

3. Ande thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia, avral andar godi kaj bešel thaj ande relacia pala e pučipa andar o paragrafo 2, pala svako našaldo manuš ka kerel pes egalutni procedura sar vi normalo civilo andar godo them.

TRINTO ŠERUTNO KOTOR

Lukrative butjarimaske thana

Kotor 17 – Pokinde profesie

1. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka keren pala svako našaldo manuš savo bešel pe lengi teritoria maj lačhi procedura savi kerel pes telal kodole kondicie vi pala averthemeske manuša/strenura ande relacia pala o pokinipe pala varesavi profesionalo buti.

2. E limitura save utilizin pes pala e averthemeske manuša po drom te protektuin pes o kherutno butjarimasko marketo či ka utilizil pes kontra e našalde manuša save sesa katar ethema save somnisarde kadi konvencia mukline po djes kana kadi konvencia avili pe čači zor vaj či ka utilizil pes pe našalde manuša save šaj astaren e kondicie:

a) te trin berša bešle ande godo them;

b) te si len prandimasko amal/partneri saves si themutnipe e themesko kaj bešen. O našaldo manuš našti utilizil kava čačipe te mukla pire prandimaske amale/partnere; vaj či ka utilizil pes pe našalde manuša save šaj astaren e kondicie:

c) te si les jekh vaj maj but čhavre saven si the-mutnipe e themesko kaj bešel;

3. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka len sama pherde ilesa pe aktivitetura kasko areslipe te e čačipa našalde manušengo, ande relacia pala e profesie save pokinen pes, egalizuin/keren jekh sar aver e čačipenca kodole themenge manušenca/civilenca thaj specialo pala našalde manuša save die pe lengi teritoria sar manuša save trubum te butjaren vaj te bararen e populacia e manušengi ande godo them.

Kotor 18 – Na pokinimaske profesie

E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka utilzin pala e našalde manuša save arakhle pes pe lengi teritoria/phuv so maj lačhi procedura thaj kadi procedura či ka avel maj bilačhi katar godi savi utilizil pes pala e averthemeske manuša/strenura ande relacia pala napokinimaske profesie ande agrikultura, industria, kin-bikinipe.

Kotor 19 – Slobode profesie

1. Svako them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia ka utilizil pala e našalde manuša save bešen pe lengi teritoria, saven si diplome katar o barederipe varesave themesko thaj kamen te keren buti, so maj lačhi procedura, thaj kadi procedura či trubul te avel maj bilačhi katar e procedura savi utilizil pes pala e averthemeske manuša/strenura.

2. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka keren sa so šaj, thaj ande relacia lenge bare zakonosa, te den šaipe e našalde manušenge pala bešipasko than ande sa e metropole/bare forura pe save von len sama.

ŠTARTO ŠERUTNO KOTOR

Barvalipe

Kotor 20 – Racionacia

Kana si o sistemo pala e racionacia ande savesko fremo si o sasto societato thaj savesa kerel pes regulacia pala o parudipe e produktengo save naj but e našalde manuša thaj aver ka aven jekh sar aver.

Kotor 21 – Kher

Ande relacia pala o kher, e thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka utilizin so maj lačhi procedura pala e našalde manuša save bešen pe lengi teritoria; Kadi procedura či trobul te avil maj bilačhi katar godi savi utilizil pes pala e averthemeske manuša.

Kotor 22 – Generalo edukacia

1. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka keren egalutni/jekh sar aver procedura sar vi averenca e našalde manušenca ande relacia pala e elementaro edukacia.

2. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka utilizin/keren pala e našalde manuša so maj lačhi procedura savi či ka avel maj bilačhi katar e procedura savi kerel pes pala e averthemeske manuša ande relacia pala aver kategorie e edukaciake thaj specialo ande relacia pala e studie/bare škole.

Kotor 23 – Publiko ažutipe

Ande relacia pala o ažutipe e thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka keren godi procedura našalde manušenca save bešen pe lengi teritoria sar vi averenca.

Kotor 24 – Butjarimasko zakono thaj socialo sekuritato

1. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka keren e procedura našalde manušenca sar vi averenca:

a) te si godola pučipa regulišime/kerdine zakonosa vaj si ande relacia administrative barederipasa: love pala o butjaripe, khetane e familiake ažutimaske pokinimasa, katar thaj dži kaj trail e buti, maj but časura e butjarimaske, pokinipe pala e beršeski vakacia, limito ande relacia e butjaki ando kher;

b) ande relacia pala o socialo sekuritato zakoneske paragrafura pala e bibaxtalipa po butjako than; pala profesionale nasvalipa; pala e bijandipa, pala e nasvalipa; pala o invaliditeto; pala o puranipe thaj meripe; pala o nabutjaripe; pala e familiake obligacie sar vi pala svako aver riziko savo si regulišime sistemosa pala o socialo sekuritato, telal e rezerva:

i) pala e aranžmanura save intjaren e čačipa save sesa e manuše thaj e čačipa save trubun te aven e manuše;

ii) pala e speciale paragrafura ramosardine ando nacionalo zakono e themesko kaj o našaldo dživdil save si ande relacia pala o dinipe kaj opaš dinipe save pokinen pes andar e publike fondura, sar vi pala o ažutipe savo del pes e manušenge save či astaren e kondicie ande relacia pala o dinipe pala permanento penzia.

2. Čačipe pe lovengo dinipe, kana o našaldo manuš merel godolese kaj sasa les bibaxt pe butjako than (kaj kerel buti) vaj kaj profesionalo nasvajlilo, či ka avel limitirime godolese kaj o manuš bešel avral e teritoria e themeski savo somnisarda kadi konvencia.

3. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka buxljaren pe našalde manuša čačipe pe utilizacia e kontraktonenca save phangle vaj ka phanden maškar peste po drom te intjaren pes e čačipa vaj te astaren pes e čačipa pala o socialo sekuritato, te e našalde manuša šaj astaren e kondicie save si kerdine pala e civilura andar e thema save somnisarde e kontrakura pala save vakarel pes.

4. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka dikhen o šaipe te buxljarel pes vi pe našalde manuša čačipe pe utilizacia savo avel avri andar e kontraktura (pala save si ramosardino opre) save sesa vaj ka aven pe čači zor, maškar e thema save somnisarde o kontrakto thaj maškar godola save na.

PANDŽTO ŠERUTNO KOTOR

Administrative aktivitetura

Kotor 25 – Administrativo ažutipe

1. Te pala realizacia e čačipaski katar varesavo našaldo manuš trubul ažutipe katar averthemutne bvarederipa/autoritetura savenca o našaldo manuš našti vakarel, e thema save somniosarde kadi konvencia pe savi teritoria o našaldo trail ka ažutin leske vaj numaj lenge barderipasa vaj varesave maškarthemutne barederipasa.

2. O barederipe vaj barederipa pala save vakarel pes ando paragrafo 1 ka den avri vaj ka keren te telal lengi kontrola, den avri e našalde manušenge personale lila saven si vi averthemutne manušen ande godo them.

3. Gasave personale lila ka paruden oficiale aktura save averthemune mnušenge den lenge nacionale barederipa.

4. Gasave aktivitetura, save si ramosardine opre,trubun te pokinen pes numaj kava pokinipe ka avel egalutno e pokinimasa save den vi e civilura andar godo them pala kadale servisura.

5. E paragrafura andar kava kotor naj mamuj/kontra e kotorenca 27. thaj 28.

Kotor 26 – Sloboda pala o miškipe

Svako them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia ka del e našalde manušenge save permanento/sajekh bešen pe lengi teritoria čačipe te alosaren o than kaj ka bešen thaj te slobodo miškin pes telal e kondicie save utilizin pes vi pala e averthemenge manuša.

Kotor 27 – Lila pala o identiteto

E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka den e lila pala o identiteto svakone našalde manušese savo bešel pe leski teritoria thaj saves naj lačhe personale lila.

Kotor 28 – Personale lila pala o slobodo miškipe

1. E thema save somnisarde e konvencia ka den e našalde manušenge save sajekh bešen pe lengi teritoria lila pala o miškipe save ka den lenge šaipe te džan vi avral kadale teritoriatar te godo naj kontra o nacionalo sekuritato; o paragrafo katar o apendix A ka utilizin pes pe kadala lila khetane e konvenciasa. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia šaj den gasave lila svakone dujtone našalde manuše savo bešel pe lengi teritoria; e thema ka len specialo sama pe kazura ande save e našalde manuša save si pe lengi teritoria thaj save našti te aresen e miškipaske lila te džan andar o them kaj permanento train.

2. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka respektuin e miškipaske lila save die, ande relacia pala e purane kontraktura, thaj ka dikhen pe kadale lila sar kana si kerdine ande relacia ladale kotoresa.

Kotor 29 – Fiskale obligacie

1. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia či ka roden katar e našalde manuša varesave speciale takse save si maj bare katar e takse save len pes katar normale civilura ande gasave situacie.

2. Te e našalde manuša kamen sar averthemeske manuša administrative dokumentura sar vi e identitoske lila godo ka pokinel pes.

Kotor 30 – Barvalipasko transfero

1. Svako them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia ka mukel e našalde manušen, ande relacia zakonesa ande godo them, te o barvalipe savo ande pe lengi teritoria indjaren pesa pe teritoria avere themeski kaj ka bešen permanento.

2. Svako them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia ka lel sama pe mangipaske lila save den e našalde manuša save kamen oficielo šaipe te indjaren pesa piro barvalipe kaj ka bešen sajekh/permanento.

Kotor 31 – Našalde manuša save bi muklipasko bešen ande varesavo them

1. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia či ka keren sankcie kana e našalde manuša den pe lengi teritoria bi lenge muklipasko kana e našalde manuša aven katar e teritoria kaj si lengo trajo vaj sloboda dukhadine ande relacia kotoresa 1. E našalde manuša trubun kana den ande averthemeski teritoria te džan ande oficiale themeske institucie thaj te phenen sostra našle.

2. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia či ka utilizin, ande relacia pala e našalde manušengo miškipe, varesave aver limitura numaj godola save trubun te keren pes; kadala limitura ka utilizin pes/keren pes numaj dži kaj ando them kaj našalde manuša avile ši regulišil pes lengo statuso vaj dži kaj von či džan ande varesavo aver them. Godolese/vaš odi e thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka den e našalde manušenge jekh vramako periodo sar vi varesave lokharipa.

Kotor 32 – Tradipe

1. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka traden e našalde manuše katar pširi teritoria numaj te o našaldo manuš kerel problemo pala o nacionalo sekuritato.

2. Tradipe našalde manušengo ka kerel pes numaj kana annel pes o decizji savo si ande relacia e zakonesa. E našalde manušese trubul te del pes,te godo naj kontra nacionalo sekuritatosa, šaipe te phenel sostar trubul te ačhel sar vi šaipe te kerel rovipasko lil thaj te arakhel pes advokato savo ka reprezentui les anglal o barederipe/autoriteto.

3. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka den gasave našalde manušese lašho vramako periodo po drom te den lese šaipe te arakhel varesavo aver them kaj te džal. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia čaj ande kava periodo keren aktivitetura pala save von gindin kaj trubun te keren.

Kotor 33 – Tradimasko opripe

1. Či jekh them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia či ka tradel vaj iril zorasa e našalde manuše pe teritoria katar vov našlo godolese kaj sasa les rasno, religiako, themutnipasko problemo vaj aver politikano gindipe.

2. Pe kava paragrafo našti akharel pes o našaldo manuš savo šaj dukhavel e themesko sekuritato kaj arakhel pes ande godo momento vaj te kerda varesavo kriminalo akto thaj te si krisisardo.

Kotor 34 – Naturalizacia

E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka den so maj baro šaipe te kerel pes asimilacia thaj naturalizacia našalde manušengo. Von specialo ka sidjaren e procedura pala e naturalizacia thaj ka keren maj lesne love pala kadi procedura.

ŠOVTOŠERUTNO KOTOR

Egzekutive thaj nakhipaske paragrafura

Kotor 35 – Ko-operacia nacioinale barederi-pasko Jekhethaneske nacienca

1.E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia lie pe peste obligacia te keren ko-operacia bare komesaresa Jekhethaneske naciengo pala našalde manuša thaj svakone avere organosa/instituciasa Jekhethaneske naciengo save šaj aven po than bare komesaresko specialo te lokhare lese te lel sama sar utilizin pes e paragrafura kadale konvenciako.

2. Po drom te den šaipe bare komesareske vaj svakone avere instituciake Jekhethaneske naciengo save šaj aven po lesko than pala dinipe e raporturengo Jekhethaneske nacienge, e thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia te den lenge ande lačhi forma informacie thaj statistika ande relacia pala:

a) statuso našalde manušengo

b) utilizacia kadale konvenciako

c) pala e zakonura, paragrafura save ka aven pe čači zor pala e našalde manuša.

Kotor 36 – Informacie pala e nacionale zakonura

E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka den e Generale sekretarese Jekhethaneske naciengo zakoneske tekstura save šaj anen po drom te protektuin/arakhen utilizacia kadale konvenciaki.

Kotor 37 – Sarsavi sas relacia purane konvencianca?

Bi dukhavipasko paragrafosko 2 kotoresko 28, kadi konvencia avili po than, maškar e riga (e thema) save somnisarde kadi konvencia, kontrakturengo katar o 5-to juli 1922-to berš, 31-to maj 1924-to berš, 12-to maj 1926-to berš, 30-to jun 1928-to berš thaj 30-to juli 1935-to berš, sar vi e konvenciako katar 28-to oktobri 1933-to berš, 10-to februari 1938-to berš, protokoli katar 14-to septembri 1939-to berš thaj kontraktosko katar 15-to oktobri 1946-to berš.

EFTATOŠERUTNO KOTOR

Maj palune paragrafura

Kotor 38 – Sar phagavel pes o problemo?

Svako problemo maškar e thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ande relacia pala e konvenciako xatjaripe thaj utilizacia savo našti phagavel pes varesar ka phagavel o Maškarthemutno čačipasko krisi kana godo mangel jekh katar e thema saven si problemo.

Kotor 39 – Somnipe, ratifikacia thaj lethanipe

1. Kadi konvencia ka avel putardi pala o somnipe ando foro Geneva katar 28-to juli 1951-to berš thaj pala godo datumo ka avel deponouime ka Generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo.Voj ka avel putardi pala o somnipe ande Europako ofiso Jekhethaneske naciengo katar 28-to juli dži kaj 31-to avgust 1951-to berš, pala godo palpale ka avel putardi pala o somnipe ando šerutno bešipasko than Jekhethaneske naciengo katar 17-to sepembri 1951-to berš dži kaj 31-to decembri 1952-to berš.

2. Kadi konvencia ka avel putardi pala o somnipe katar sa e thema save si membrura Jekhetheneske nacienge sar vi katar svako them savo naj membro numaj si akhardino pe oficielo pe konferencia pala o statuso našalde manušengo thaj manušengo saven naj themutnipe vaj svako them kase o Generalo kidipe/kongreso bičhalel akharipe te somnil.Voj ka avel ratifikuime pal e ratifikaciake instrumentura ka aven deponuime ka Generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo.

3. E thema pala save vorbil pes ando paragrafo 2 kadale kotoresko šaj somnin kadi konvencia katar 28-to juli 1951-to berš. O lethanipe ka kerel pes kade kaj ka deponuin pes e instrumentura pala o lethanipe ka Generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo.

Kotor 40 – Paragrafo pala e teritorialo utilizacia

1. Svako them kana somnil kana somnil, kerel ratifikacia vaj lethanipe šaj phenel kaj kadi konvencia ka avel buxljardini pe sa e teritorie save si leske. Kava vakaripe/vorba ka avel čači katar o djes kana godi konvencia avel pe čači zor ande godo them.

2. Ande svako vrama maj palal kava buxljaripe ka kerel pes notifikaciasa savi ka avel bičaldine generale sekretarese Jekhethaneske naciengo thaj ka avel čači katar o 90-to djes kana o Generale sekretarese Jekhethaneske naciengo aresel e noitifikacia vaj po djes kana kadi konvencia avel pe čači zor ande godo them.

3. Ande relacia pala e teritorie pe save kadi konvemcia či ka utilizil pes po djes kana kerel pes o somnipe, ratifikacia vaj lethanipe svako them saves si intereso ka dikhel si šaipe vaj na te so maj anglal kerel e aktivitetura te utilizil kadi konvencia pe opre ramosardine/lekhardine teritorie telal jekh kondicia te piro glaso den vi e governura kadale teritoriangi.

Kotor 41 – Federalo paragrafo

Ando kazo kana si ando pušipe jekh federativi vaj naunitaro them ka uzilizin pes telune paragrafura:

a) ande relacia pala e membrura kadale konvenciaki kasko zakono perel po federalo barederipe, obligacia federale governoski ka egalutni obligacienca e themenge saven naj federalo konstitucia.

b) ande relacia pala e membrura kadale konvenciaki kasko zakono perel po federalo barederipe pal ande peste intjaren e kantonura save korkore vazden opre kadale decizja o federalo governo, so maj anglal, ka informišil pozitivo kadale kantonura pala kadale kotora.

c) federativo them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia ka del, te godo rodel aver them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia perdal o Generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo, raporto pala e zakonura save si pe zor ande federative kotora save keren godo them ande relacia varesave paragrafosko kadale konvenciako.

Kotor 42 – Rezerve

1. Kana del pes o somno, ratifikacia vaj lethanipe svako them šaj šuvel/thol rezerve pe kotora kadale konvenciaki numaj našti pe kotora 1, 3, 4, 16 (1), 33, 36. dži kaj kotor 46.

2. Svako them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia thaj savo šuvda rezerva ande relacia pala o paragrafo 1 kadale kotoresko šaj kana kamel cirdel kadi rezerva kade kaj ka informišil Generale sekretare Jekhethaneske naciengo.

Kotor 43 – Avipe pe čači zor

1. Kadi konvencia avel pe čači zor 20-to djes katar o djes kana deponuil pes 6-to instrumento pala e ratifikacia vaj lethanipe.

2. Pala svako them savo ka ratifikuil e konvencia vaj khetanil pes e konvenciasa kana deponuil pes o 6-to instrumento pala e ratifikacia vaj lethanipe,voj ka avel pe čači zor 90-to djes kana deponuin pes e instrumentura godole themesko pala e ratifikacia vaj lethanipe.

Kotor 44 – Cirdipe

1. Svako them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia šaj cirdel piro somno katar e konvencia jkana godo kamel notifikaciasa savi trubul te bičhalel Generalnone sekretarese Jekhethaneske naciengo.

2. O cirdipe ka avel pe čači zor jekh berš katar o djes kana o Generalo sekretari akceptuil kadi notifikacia.

3. Svako them savo dia piro raporto vaj notofikacia ande relacia pala o kotor 40 šaj maj palal informišil Generalnone sekretare Jekhethaneske naciengo kaj či ka utilizil pes e konvencia pe teritoria savi si sikadini ando raporto/notifikacia. E konvencia atoska/atunči ka ačhel te utilizil pes pe godi teritoria jekh berš katar o djes kana o Generalo sekretari akceptuil godi iinformacia.

Kotor 45 – Revizia

1. Svako them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia šaj kana kamel te rodel revizia kadale konvenciaki kade kaj ka tradel/bičhalel jekh lil Generalnone sekretarese Jekhethaneske naciengo.

2. O Generalo kongreso Jekhethaneske naciengo ka phenel sarsave aktivitetura trubun te keren pes, te godo trubul, ande relacia pala godo lil.

Kotor 46 – Notofikacia Generale sekretaresko Jekhethaneske naciengo

Generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo ka notifikuil sa e themenge save si membrura Jekhethaneske naciengo sar vi e themenge save naj membrura pala save vakarel pes ando kotor 39:

a) informacie pala save vakarel pes ando somno I kotoresko 1;

b) somnura, ratifikacie thaj lethanipa pala save vakarel pes/vorbil pes ando kotor 39;

c) notifikacie pala save vakarel pes ando kotor 40;

d) rezerve, šuvdine vaj cirdine,pala save vakarel pes ando kotor 42;

e) o datumo kana kadi konvencia ka avel pe čači zor ando egzamplo kotoresko 43;

f) cirdipa thaj informacie ande relacia pala o kotor 44;

g) revizia pala savi vakarel pes/vorbil pes ando kotor 45.

Kerdino ando foro Ženeva po 28-to juli 1952-to berš ande jekh kopia thaj anglikano sar vi francikano teksto si jekh sar aver. Von ka aven deponuime ande arhiva Jekhethaneske naciengo pal oficiele kopie ka aven bičhaldine sa e themenge save si membrura Jekhetheneske naciengo sar vi e themenge save naj membrura pal pala lende vakarel pes/vorbil pes ando kotor 39.

Protokoli pala o statusi našalde manušengo

(Foro New York, 31-to januari 1967-to berš)

E thema save somnisarde kava protokoli, gindosa kaj e Konvencia pala o statuso našalde manušengo si kerdini po 28-to juli 1951-to berš ando foro Ženeva (maj dur ando teksto konvencia) intjarel ande peste numaj kodola manuša save si našalde manuša godolese kaj vareso sasa maj anglal 1-to januari 1951-to berš, gindosa kaj katar e vrama kana si e konvencia lindi/akceptuime sesa but situacie ande save si kerdine vadži/inke našalde manuša thaj kaj kadale našalde manuša godolese našti aven šuvdine/thodine ando fremo kadale konvenciako, gindosa kaj sa e našalde manušen trubul te avel egalutno statuso sar si phendino ande definicia e konvenciaki, bi reakciako pala o vramako periodo dži kaj 1-to januari 1951-to berš, čhinade pes/phande e vorba:

Kotor I – Generale paragrafura

1. E thema save somnisarde kava protokoli ka utilizin e kotora 2. dži kaj 34 pe našalde manuđša sar si godo maj dur ando teksto definišime.

2. Ande kava protokoli o termino “našaldo manuš“, numaj na ando punkto 3. kadale kotoresko, ka utilizil pes svako manuš savo si definišime kotoresa 1. kadale Konvenciako

3. E thema save somnisarde kava protokoli ka utilizin les bi geografgikane limitosko, numaj e vakaripa save si dinde katar e thema save si membrura e Konvenciaki ande relacia pala o kotor 1B (1)(a), te naj buxljardine ande relacia pala o kotor 1 B (2), ka utilizin pes pe baza e protokoleski.

Kotor II – Kooperacia nacionale barederipasko Jekhethaneske nacienca

1. E thema save somnisarde kava protokoli lie pe peste obligacia kaj ka keren khetani buti/kooperacia e oficosa Bare komesaresko Jekhethaneske naciengo, vaj svakone avere agenciasa savi ka avel pe ofisosko than thaj kerel kodola butja, e thema specialo ka a\utin kade kaj ka dern leske šaipe te lel sama sar utilizil pes kava protokoli.

2. Po drom te del pes ofisose bare komesareske vaj svakone avere agenciase Jekhethaneske naciengo te kerel raportura organurenge Jekhethanese naciengo, e thema save somnisarde kava protokoli lie pe peste obligacia te den lenge lačhe informacia sar vi e statistika:

a) pala e kondicie sar train/dživdinen e našalde manuša;

b) sar utilizil pes kava protokoli;

c) zakonura, paragrafura pala e našalde manuša savi si vaj ka aven pe čači zor.

Kotor III – Dinipe e informaciengo pala o nacionalo zakono

E thema save somnisarde kava protokoli ka den e generale sekretarese Jekhethaneske naciengo zakonenge tekstura save si kerdine po drom te protektuil pes/arakhel pes kava prtokoli.

Kotor IV – Sar phagaven pes e problemura

Svako problemo mašakar e thema save somnisarde kava protokolo savi si ande relacia pe lesko ginavipe vaj utilizacia, thaj savo našti avel phagardino pe varesavo aver drom, ka bičhalel pes anglalo o Maškarthemutno čačipasko krisi te godo kamel jekh katar e thema saven si problemo.

Kotor V – Lethanipe ando protokolo

Kava protokoli si putardino pala o lethanipe ando anav sa e themengo save si membrura e Konvenciaki thaj svakone avere themesko savo si membro Jekhethaneske naciengo vaj membro varesave speciale agenciako vaj kodolake kaske avel bičhaldino akharimasko lil katar o Generalo Kongreso Jekhethaneske naciengo te lel than. O lethanipe ka kerel pes kade kaj ka deponuin pes e instrumentura pala o lethanipe ka Generalo Sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo.

Kotor VI – Klauzula pala e federacie

Ande kazura kana si o them kerdino sar federacia ka utilizin pes kadala paragrafura:

a) ande relacia pala godola membrura e Konvenciaki save utilizin pem ande relacia kotoresa I punkto 1. kadale protokolesko, pal peren telal zakoneski jurisdikcia federale zakoneske barederipasko, obligacie federale governosko ka aven egalutne sar vi pala e thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia pal naj federacie;

b) ande relacia pala godola membrura e Konvenciaki save utilizin pem ande relacia kotoresa I punkto 1. kadale protokolesko, pal peren telal zakoneski jurisdikcia e themengo sar kantono, provincia save si kotor e federaciako, saven ande relacia bare maj bare zakonesa e themeske naj obligacia te keren zakoneski akcia, o federalo governo jekhe lačhe rekomodaciasa, so maj sigo ka informišil barederipe kodole themesko, provinciako vaj kantonesko pala opre sikadine kotora;

c) federalo them savo somnisarda kava protokolo, te godo kamel varesavo aver them savo si mem-brošaj del raporto pala o zakono thaj pragmatika ande federacia thaj lake kotora ande relacia pala svako odredba e Konvenciaki savi utilizil pes ande relacia pala o kotor I. punkto 1. kadale proto-kolosko ande savo šaj phenel dži kaj areslo pes ande uzilitacia e paragrafoski zakoneske vaj avere akciasa.

Kotor VII – Rezerve thaj informacie

1. Kana kerel pes o lethanipe, svakone theme si čačipe te thol/šuvel rezerva po kotor IV kadale protokolosko vi pe utilizacia, ande relacia kotoresa I kadale protokolesko, svako paragrafo kadale Konvenciako numaj na godola save si intjardine ande kotora 1, 3, 4, 16 (1) thaj 33, telal kondicia, kana si ando pučipe o them savo somnisarda kadi Konvencia,e rezerve save si šuvdine pe baza kadale kotoreski na buxljaren pes pe našalde manuša pe save e Konvencia utilizil pes.

2. E rezerve save si šuvdine/thodine katar e thema save somnisarde kadi Konvencia ande relacia pala o kotor 42. utilizil pes, te naj cirdine, pe lenge obligacia save inkljen avri andar kava protokolo.

3. Svako them savo šuvel/thol rezerva ande relacia punktosa 1. kadale kotoresko šaj vi cirdel las, numaj trubul pala kava te informišil vi e generale sekretare Jekhethaneske naciengo.

4. Ka gindil pes/lel pes sar čače kaj e informacie save o them savo somnisarda e Konvencia thaj savo lel than vi ando protokolo del ande relacia e kotoresa 40. punkto 1. thaj 2. e Konvenciako, si ande relacia vi kadale protokolesa, kondiciasa te kana o them lethanil pes či informišisarda generale sekretare Jekhethaneske naciengo. Ka gindil pes kasj e paragrafura kotoresko 40. punkto 2. thaj 3. thaj kotoresko 44. punkto 3. e Konvenciako urilizin pes pe kava Protokolo mutatis mutandis.

Kotor VIII – Avipe pe čači zor

1. Kava protokoli ka avel pe čači zor po djes kana deponuin pes 6-to instrumento pala p lethanipe.

2. O protokolo avel pe čači zor pala svako them savo kamel te lel than kana deponuil pes 6-to instrumento pala o lethanipe ando protokolo, po djes kana deponuil pes o instrumento pala o lethanipe katar godo them.

Kotor IX – Cirdipe

1. Svako them savo somnisarda šaj vi cirdel pes andar o protokolo ande svako vrama, kade kaj ka kerel lil savo trubul te bičhalel generale sekretareske Jekhethaneske naciengo.

2. Kava cirdipe avel pe čači zor pala o them savo somnisarda savo bičhalda o lil pala o cirdipe jekh berš katar o djes kana o cirdipe si akceptuime katar o generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo.

Kotor X – Notifikacia generale sekretaresko Jekhethaneske naciengo

Generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo informišil e themen save si sikadine ando kotor V pala o avipe pe čači zor, pala e lethanipa, pala e rezerve, pala e cirdipa e rezervengo thaj cirdipa andar o protokolo sar vi pala e informacia save si ande relacia pala kava so si opre ramosardino.

Kotor XI

Kopia kadale protokolesko, kasko anglikano, francikano, rusikano thaj španjolikano teksto si egalutne, somnisardo katar o prezidento Generale thaj katar o Generalo sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo, deponuin pes ande arhiva e sekretariatoski Jekhethaneske naciengo. O Generalo sekretari ka del oficiele kopie sa e themenge save si membrura Jekhethaneske naciengo thaj vi avere themenge save si sikadine ando opruno kotor V.
=====================================================================================

Faktolilengo lil: Kidipe ko kidipe rekordo pe Romane čačimata

17 May 2010

Ka septembriako 2008-to romano kidipe, o Europako Centro pe Romane Čačimata/ Hakaja (ECRC) cyrda o gindo e Europako Uniako thaj e politikane kerimatorenge pe manuškane hakajenge standartura vaš e romenge protekcijake. Kaj o Dujto Europako romano kidipe avel, kava faktonengo lil dikhel kozom si respektirime e principura ande Thema kotora katar e Europaki Unia (EU) thaj ande thema ando akseso ando EU de katar gadaja vrjama.

Violencia/zoripe mamuj e Roma: Ande kazusura kerde katar o ECRC, o Europako Kriso pe Manuškane Čačimata kerda konfirmacija kaj o them trubul te kerel rodipe thaj krisako proceso palal manuša - privatni vaj themeske, save kerde zoripe/violencia mamuj e roma. O Kriso zurjarda kava mesažo adno 2009-to thaj 2010-to ande kazusura ingjarde katar o ECRC mamuj e Croatia thaj e Bulgaria. Maj but katar e manuša save keren zoripe mamuj e Roma ando EU, ačhen bikrisome.

Katar o 2008-to, ande Češko Republika, Ungriko Them thaj e Italia anti-Romane zorimata/violencie sas seriosno thaj baro problemo; roma katar aver thema sas vi von afektirime. Ando Ungriko Them, o ECRC registrisarda em zalaga 45 reportura pe zorime atake mamuj e Roma thaj vi 9 merimata save astarde te len than katar o 2008-to. ECRC-sko reporto phenel kaj sade/numa ekh došalo kerimatori sas arakhado ži agive (kerel pes leske apelacia). Ande Češko Republika em zalaga 7 atake mamuj e Roma sas reportirime, maj but lendar sas kerde Molotove kokteilenca, thaj bižanglo nomero maršura save resade sar anti-Romane atake. Ande ekh katar e atake, ekh duje brešengi cikni čhoru sas te merel dukhendar katar e jagake bombe. Mediake reportura indikirin kaj došale kerimatorja sas arakhade sade/numa ande duj atake. Ando novembro 2009-to, te phiras palal o zoripe/violencia mamuj e roma ande Italia, mafia kerdi katar 200-300 žene, kerda ataka thaj phagla e romenge khera ande Alba Adriatica. Ando aprilo 2009-to, YouTube visitorja šaj dikhenas sar ekh grupa šingale/policía katar e Slovakia keren doš šove terne romane čhavenge, save sas ando phandipe. Ando juno 2009-to ande Opruni Irlandia (UK) ekhe grupake romane familienge sas lenge kerde serie zorime atake ande lenge khera ando Belfast; e khangeri ande savi von rode žutipe sas vi voi atakuime. Ande Turkia, paše ekh milja žene atakuisarde romane malave turjal e Manisa Selendi ando januaro 2010-to. E mafia phagla thaj phabarda e khera, care thaj vordonura e romenge thaj cipisarda sloganura: “Ame ni mangas roma ande Seleni”. Sar resultati, 74 roma našle katar o foro.

Barjardo aktiviteto e ekstremime politikane partienge, politikanenge thaj šingalenge: Katar o 2008-to, ande but EU thema extremime polikane partie thaj politikane manuša zurjarde piri anti-romani ritorika thaj kerimata thaj kerde klimato ande savo čačimatonengo phagipe ačhel bikrisome.

Ando Ungriko Them, e Magyar Garda, ekh paramilitarime organizacia savja si la rasistime agenda, žal maj angle ande pire aktivitetura thaj kerel buki, dako sas phandi ando 2009-to ekhe decisiasa katar o Baro Kriso. Ande gadava breš, e Jobbik, ekh ekstremime partia anti-romane programasa, la štar thana ande elekcie e Europake Parlamentoske. Ande Italia o governmento ni ačada te vakjarel mamuj e roma, te zurjarel e publikako gindo mamuj e roma thaj sintura, ži kana zurjarelas emergenciaki situacia mamuj e roma thaj meškisalo agresiasa te del palal/kerel evikcie e romenge katar lenge khera thaj te čhol len ekhe kupate ande kontrolime kampura: gasave evikcie maj but ačhhile ando 2010-to. Ande Slovakia ando 2010-to e ekstremime Ludova strana Nase Slovensko (Manušengi partia Amari Slovakia) sas but aktiv karing e ritorika mamuj e roma, konkretno karing o “Romano doškeripe/criminaliteto”. Ando novembro 2008-to e Češko Bukjarnengi Partia (DS) kerda mitingo ando Litvinov panžšele Neo-nažisenenca thaj mangla te kerel marcho ande ekh romani malava maj anglal te avel ačhadi katar e policía/šingale palal violenciake konfrontacie. Ando februaro 2010-to e Romaniako Avruno Ministero vorbisarda publikane kaj e romengo doškeripe si ande lengo geno. Media reportirisarda kaj o Presidento Traian Basescu inkjarda palal o Ministero thaj phenda kaj e Romania si la kaljardo imažo maškar sa e thema kerdo katar e Roma save žan te mangen pe “sako ekh rig e dromeski”.

Aksesosko bidipe po sastipe thaj socialno asistencia: Diskriminacia ando akseso ži ko sastipe thaj socialno asistencia ačhel bariera savi blokiril o akseso e romengo ži ka kala servisura ande but Thema ando EU. Ande duj decisie kerde anodo 2009-to, e Europako Komiteto pe Socialne Čačimata arakhada e Bulgaria te phagel e Europaki Socialno Harta kaj ni inkjarda pe piri vorba te del garantía kaj e romen si len lačho akseso ži ka sistema po sastipe thaj socialno asistencia. O governmento da postivno pučiripe/respondo kaj kerda nevimata ando zakono pe socialno asistencia te eliminiril vrjamaki limitacia pe gasavi asistencia. Ando Kosovo, plumbaki contaminacia sas ando kampo-kher pe romane andrune thodinde manuša (IDPs) ande Upruni Mitrovica, savi si gindi te avel ekh katar em e bare medikane krize ando regiono. Date si bari maškarthemutni thaj EU atentia pe situacia, e roma važe train ando kampo de katar 10 breš, biprotektirime katar e plumbaki contaminacia, savi kerda but mudaripe.

Zorimaski sterilizacia e romane romnjange ni ačhavel: Ando Ungriko Them, o ERRC dokumntirisarda sporadime kazusura, katar save em o sigo si katar o 2008-to. Češke kazusura, em sigo kerdo ando 2008-to, sas reportirime thaj maj but katar 20 neve ašugjaren rodipe, savo te kerdol pes katar e regionalne sastimaske autoritetura. Ando 2009-to o Češko governmento da piro ertisaripe karing e kurbanura/viktimura kadale prakticiake thaj o governmento ando Ungriko Them da compensacia ekhe kurbanosko/victimoske. O governemnto ande Slovakia ni kerda nisave padmada te adresiril gadava problemo thaj ni e governmentura ande Češko republika thaj Slovakia adoptirisarde akhjardo plano te den conpensacia sa e kurbanonen/viktimen. Reforma ando sastipmasko zakono trubul te kerdol pes ando Ungriko Them te del garantia kaj informcia si dindi palal o konsento pe sterilizacia.

Sistematikani segregacia e romene čhavenge ande školje ni ačhavel: O Europako Kriso pe Manuškane Čačimata pale phenda kaj e segregacia e romane čhavenge (ande školje vaš čhavenge invalidura thaj školje ulavde katar e gaženge vaj sade romane klasura ande školje) si bizakonoski diskriminacia. Ando marto 2010-to, e Bari Kamara (chambero) e Europaki Krisoski pe Manuškane Čačimata mothoda pi posizia ando kazuso Oršuš thaj Aver mamuj Croatia kaj e segregacia e romane čhavenge ande ulavde klasura bazirime demek pe čhibako bižanglipe si bizakoneski diskriminacia. Dako o Kriso kerda bidogindone trin decisie katar o 2007-to, e sikavimaski segregacia e romane čhavenge si sistematikani ande but thema ande Europaki Unia: Bulgaria, Češko Republika, Grecia, Ungriko Them, Romania thaj Slovakia, segregaciake raportortonenca ande Opruni Irlandia (UK), Portugalia thaj Espania. Ande sasti Europaki Unia, romane čhave resaven školja maj cikne suksesosa katar pire gažikane školjake amala.

O pučiripe/responso e themenge kotor katar e EU ni sas totalno adekuatno: Ande Češko Republika, o governamento phenda kaj si gasavo problemo, ama lesko plano-kerimata si bi vrjamake limitosa thaj targetosa, thaj gadaleske našti lačharel o problemo. Ande Bulgaria si suksesoske integraciake proektura, ama maj but katar deš breš von ni sas kotor katar e governmntoske progmrame. Ande Slovakia, o Premiero da gindo maj bare segregaciake e romenge - te sikjon ande internatura thaj kava, vov phenel, si lačhi politika.

Durestebičhaldi thaneski segrecia dukhavel e romen: Ekh reporto katar o 2009-to breš e Agenciako vaš Fundamentime Čačimata karing e EU, arakhada kaj “e segregacia si evidento ande but thema kotor katar e EU, sar e Bulgaria, e Romania, e Češko Republika, Grecia, Espania, Francia, Kipro, Ungriko Them, Italia, Litva, Polša, Portugalia, Romania, Slovenia thaj Slovakia, khaj drom sar resultato katar e governentoske politike”. Ande Italia, o thodipe e romenge thaj e sintonenge ande “nomadonenge kampura” žal maj angle oficialnone politikasa te kerel segregacia e romenge thaj e sintonenge katar e majorime italiano populacia. Roma save bešen ande segregirime rajonura maj lokeste šaj achen kurbanura ande rasistutne atakake.

Evikcie bi alternativime akomodaciasa phagel o manuškano čačimatonengo zakono: Ando februaro 2010-to, o Europako Komiteto pe Socialne Čačimata arakhada e Francia ando phagipe e Europake Socialnone Hartake kašte lake praktikake te kerel evikcie e phirutnenge thaj aver phagimata e čačimatonenge po kheripe. Katar o 2008-to, romenge evikcie save phagle o maškarthemutno zakono ni ačhade te len tan ande Bulgaria, Italia, Macedonia, Serbia thaj Slovakia. E Italia sas but aktivime ande 20 evikcie e romenge ando Milano ando 2010-to.

O Europako Romano Čačimatotnego Centro kerel apelo karing e institucie ande EU thaj karing e thema kotor katar e EU te astaren te keren buki pe legislaciaki thaj politikaki implentacia thaj te resen progresivno zi ka respekto e čačimatonenge thaj ekualiteto e romenge.

Maj bute informaciake roden:
Rob Kushen, ECRČ-sko directoro, rob.kushen@errc.org. +1.917.747.3285
Ostalinda Maya, Koordinatoro pe žuvlikane čačimata thaj ekualiteto, ostalinda.maya@errc.org +36.30.500.1959
Sinan Gokcen, ECRČ-sko mediako oficero, sinan.gokcen@errc.org, +36.30.500.1324
=================================================================================

Le shera pa muro kadava site-o sas line pa o:

http://www.eurobrussels.com/job_display/14698/Legal_Trainee_ERRC_European_Roma_Rights_Centre_Budapest
So si Europako Rromano Čačimasko Centro?

Europako Rromano Čačimasko Centro (ERRC) si jekh maškarthemutni organizacia pala zakonura savi kerel baro numbri e aktiviteturengo kasko ares/golo si te phagavel rasistikani diskriminacia thaj manušikane čačimaski violencia mamuj Rroma. Drom savo alosarda o ERRC intjarel ande peste participacia ande vasne krisipa, maškarthemutni advokatura, rodipe thaj politikano buxljaripe thaj keripe treningurengo pala Rromane aktivistura. Katar 1996-to berš kana si kerdino o ERRC dia but bari zor te e Rroma astaren sa so trubul len thaj kade te phagaven diskriminacia thaj te astaren egalutno akseso (access) pala governo, edukacia, butjaripe, sastipaski protekcia, urbanizmo thaj publike (sa-themenge) servisura. O ERRC kerel buti te phagavel stereotipura thaj diskriminacia mamuj Rroma sar vi te vazdel opre egaliteto maškar Rroma thaj gadže sar vi te vazdel opre respekto pala Rroma.

Sa so kamen te džanen pala ERRC-eske generale butja, keren kontakto e rajosa Dzavit Berisha: dzavit.berisha@errc.org.

* Faktolilengo lil: Kidipe ko kidipe rekordo pe Romane čačimata
* Importanto dokumentora pe romani chib

http://www.eurobrussels.com/job_display/14698/Legal_Trainee_ERRC_European_Roma_Rights_Centre_Budapest

Lila romane 4

2010-08-25T21:33:00.000-07:00

So si diskriminacija? — Skurto liloro e manušenge save kerena buci pe Romengere cacipena - Romani language version of "Recognising and Combating Racial Discrimination: A Short Guide" by the ERRC.

4 June 2004

I diskriminacija savi si bazirimi upral i rasa, koloro vaj etniciteto (rasaki diskriminacija) sakana si bazično phageripe e manušikane čačipenengo. Vorbencar kotar e Internacionalno Konvencija vaš eliminiripe sa e formi kotar e rasaki diskriminacija, šaj te hačarel pes kaj o vorbi rasaki diskriminacija, šaj te phenen vi kodo kaj vareko kerel varesavi restrikcija,lejbe avrijal, pe baza koloreski, nacionalno vaj etnikumo vaš najkehipe pe manušikane čačipena thaj bazične politikane, ekonomikane, socijalne, kulturake vaj vaver rig kotar e dživdipe. Fundamento vaš e na diskriminacijeke principura si jekhipe pe čačipena vaš manušenge kotar vaver rasa, etnikano vaj nacionalno minoriteto angleder o zakono thaj jekh protekcija po zakono. Kodola čačipena si vaš jekhpe an edukacija, sastipen, khera thaj phutarde servisura. E čhemen si obligacija (musaj) te keren prevencija pe gasavi rasaki diskriminacija.

O akanutno Europako zakono kerel diferenca maškar direktno thaj indirektno diskriminacija. Sar so phenel e Europaki Unijaki Direktiva vaš Rasako Jekhipe 2000-43-EC, direktno diskriminacija si kana varesave manušeske či del pes jekh šajipena sar vaverenge soske si kotar vaver rasa. Sar egzamplo šaj te vakeras jekh šajipena vaš buči (kana e Romen či khamen te len an buči), kana naj len jekh čačipena vaš khera thaj normalno kondicije dživdipaske.

Indirektno diskriminacija avela kana varesave kriterije ande praktika save so sikavena pes pe varesavi neutralno verzija. Thaj ki komparacija vavere manušencar ki praktika naj legitimne. Sar egzamplo vaš kadi diskriminacija šaj te vakeras kana vaš lunge cohi varesave džuvlja či meken ande bolti vaj manušen so legarena stadika pe lenge šere. Kodo naj regulirimo zakonesar, numa si diskriminacija soske džanel pes save manuša egzakto (kotar savo minoriteto) legaren lunge cohi, vaj stadika an po šero.

Pe varesave thema kote o ERRC kerel buči, but manuša pačan kaj mamuj e Roma naj diskriminacija. Kodo avelakodolestar so i Konstitucija themeski vaj vaver zakonura phenen kaj i diskriminacija naj legalno thaj kaj e Roma si prindžarde sar minoriteto. Numa, kodo si jekh baro bihaljobe soske egzaktno gasavi diskriminacija sikavela pes pe thema ande Europa. Kodo so si zakono mamuj i diskriminacija pe tumaro them, či phenel kaj tumen našti te arakhen tumeni ki situacija te oven diskriminirime. Kodo phenel numa kodo kaj tumen si instrumentura te maren tumen mamuj e diskriminacija. Tumen šaj te arakhen tumen butivar pe diskriminacijake aktura sako džives.

Numa pe but limitirime kejsura i diskriminacija šaj te ovel avrijal kotar o zakono. Pi relacija e direktno diskriminacijasar kodo šaj te phenel pes sar, sar tikno egzamplo — Kana jekhe Rabineske na dela pes šajipen te aplicirinen bučake e Židovencar vaj kana Romeske či del pes šajipen te kerel buči sar bučarno e thernencar.

Pe varesave gasave specifične situacije i diskriminacija si thaj ikljovel kotar o zakono.Vaš kodo ka das tumenge jekh egzamplo. Pe jekh firma savi so vazdel khera zakono si o bučarne te legaren kodi sastrnali sstadik vaš olengoro sikuriteto an buči. Te si gote bučarno savo so či khamel te legarel gasavi stadik soske kodo si mamuj lesko nacionalno identito, i firma šaj te frdel ole kotar e buči soske kodo si mamuj e interno zakonura vaš sikuriteto pekodi firma. Kodo čače si diskriminacija mamuj e manušenge saveso či khamen gasave sastrnale stadika, numa e firma naj obligacija anglalo zakono soske kodo si interno zakono vaš sikurita pe kodi firma.

Sar te dodžanav kaj mamuj mande kerel pes gasavi diskriminacija thaj sar te sikavav averenge kaj upri mande sas kerdi gasavi diskriminacija?

Bareder numero amendar džanen te prindžaren kodi dopaš phutardi diskriminacija. Gasavi diskriminacija, bare bibahtake, si pe sako than ande Europa. Ačilas pe tumenge vaj vaverske ando restoranto ma te len pijimata kodolestar soske sijen Roma? Džanen varekas kaske či dije buči soske so Rom? E, pe kadala kejsura isi tumen kodi dopaš phutardi diskriminacija. O ERRC pe sa kadala kejsura dikhel sar diskriminacijake aktura thaj khedel iformacije so phenen e manuša so dikhle gasavi diskriminacija.

Vaver kategorija kotar gasave diskriminacijake aktura si kanae vorbi Roma vaj Cigani naj vakerde pe mišto konteksto. Sar egzamplo: Pe but restorantura či khamen te mekhen e Romen vaj kalemanušen soske vakern kaj numa membrura šaj te den andre, vaj phenen kaj si privatno rači ande restoranto. Vaver situacija si kana te vakeras: Rom po telefono rodel buči. An telefono phenen leske te avel tosara vaš intervju. Numa, kana ka dikhen kaj si Rom, phenen leske kaj naj buči vaj kaj pe kodi buči vareko vaver astardas te kerel ola.

Sar šaj pe gasave kejsura te sikaven kaj kodo sas diskriminacijako akto? Varesave organizaciji so keren buči ande Europa keren jekh lači tehnika so vakerel pes — testiribe. Kodo testiribe si kana bičhalena pes Roma thaj na-Roma te roden jekh isto buči, te džan te roden kher vaj te khuven andre ano restorantura. Kana e Roma si tretirime aver čhane kotar e na-Roma, sar egzamplo — Kana e na-Romen mekhen ani diskoteka thaj kotar e Roma rodel pes te oven membrura vaj te ovel olen membrongi karta. Pe gasavi situacija o manuša (e Roma thaj e na-Roma so kerde o testo), trubuj sa kodo te skrinisaren thaj te čhuven po lil. Buteder vaš kodi test metoda šaj te dodžanen e manušendar kotar o ERRC. Pe anglikani chib si jekh lil pala testiribe andi amaro website:

- Testing to prove racial discrimination: methodology and application in Hungary .

Vi e statistikakere numera thaj e rezultatura šaj te sikaven vi e direktno vi e indirektno dikriminacija. Pe but thema ande Europa e romane čhavoren bičhalen ki dilengi škola. Sar ilustracija — O ERRC kerdas rodipe ano foro Ostrava ko Čehiko them. O rodipe sikada kaj pe gasave školi dile čhavorenge buteder sar dopaš so Romane čhavore. Kodo phenel kaj 27 (biš thaj efta) drom buteder sar e na-romane čhavore e gadže sas avrijal kotar gasave školi. Kotar vaver rig, but Romane čhavore so naphirenas pe gasaveškoli sas bičhalde pe specifično mahali (getura) trujal Ostrava. Buteder kotar 30 školi kotar e 70 si tipične pharne školi, bizi jekh romano čhavo.

Kodo rodipe kotar o ERRC ande Ostrava sikavel kaj pe but thema trubuj te keren pes gasave rodipena. Ande Ostrava sikavdapes kaj si barithaj dramatikani segregacija. Gasave studije si but lačhe thaj musaj te keren pes vi andi edukacija, vi vaš čačipen kherenge, ano sastipen thaj majodorig. Gasave studije si lače vašo kris numa vi vaškodo o gaverno te prekerel peski politika. Te si vi tumen intereso te keren gasave studije (rodipena) musaj te džanen kodo

# Naj čačes kodo so phenen but aktivistura kaj — sako džanel amare problemura, akak amenge trubuj numa akcija. Pe but thema naj lači statistikani baza vaš e Roma. Našti te arakhen pes numeri vajprocentura vaš

—E Romane čhavorengoprocento so phiren peškoli vaš dile čhavore

—Numero e Romengo so dživen an khera so čačes naj lenge, nane registririme thaj si but bilačhi infrastruktura

—Numero e Romengo (vi e na-Romengo) so si čhudime kotar penge khera

—Numero e Romane čhavorengo thaj e na-Romane čhavorengo so si lende kotar lenge familiji thaj si čhudime pe gavernonge institucije

# Pe varesave thema e štatoske avtoritetura blokuin te avel pes dži pe gasave informaciji. Sar egzamplo — Kana o ERRC kerelas o rodipe ano Čehiko them, kotar e avtoritetija šaj sas te šunas kaj gasave informacija ande škola naj kerde, vaj kaj našti te keren gasave informacije soske kodo naj legalno. E manuša so ka phenen tumenge kaj naj gasavi statistika šaj te blokuin tumen te aven dži po čačine numeri thaj informacije.

# Te avel gasavi jekh baza lači, o rodipe musaj te ovel mištes kerdo. Trubuj te džan pe khera lilenge (librarije), te den vorba socijologoncar, demographencar vaj te keren kontakto amencar ko ERRC.

Numa mepanda či džanav kodi si diskriminacija vaj na...

Andi kodi problematika vaš diskriminacija si gjal vakerde eksperturape pe sako phundro. But olendar ka phenen tumenge kodo kaj numa pe kodo so tumen hačarden tumen diskriminirime či phenel kaj tumen sasas čače diskriminirime. Sar te si mištes si te ikeren kodola buča an tumari godi.

# Sar majavguno — but harno numero olendar džanen so si diskriminacija thaj so phenel o zakono vaš kodo. But olendar so phenen peske ekspertura vaš diskriminacija či hačaren sasto temato vaš rasaki diskriminacija. Te gindingen tumen kaj upral tumende sas kerdi diskriminacija šaj te keren komparacija kodolestar so aba phendem vaš direktno thaj indirektno diskriminacija. Te si pe kodola duj kategoriji, kodo phenel kaj kodo šaj te ovel diskriminacija. Šaj te keren kontakto amencar ano ERRC vaj pe vaver lokalne anti-diskriminacijake organizacije thaj te dikhen šaj te keren varesavi akcija vaj na.
# O internacionalno zakono vaš anti-diskriminacija si but zuralo. Thaj sar sophenel kodo zakono gasavi diskriminacija si pe but thema thaj pe but thana, vi kana tumaro them či dijas pensko potpis vaj ratifikacija pe internacionalno konvencije vaj zakonura.

Pe agor, kana das duma vaš rasaki diskriminacija tumaro instiktošaj te legareltumen mištes. Te hačarden kaj mamuj tumnde sikerdi diskriminacija tegani si bare šansi kodo te ovel čačini diskriminacija.
Sar te marav man mamuj e rasikani diskriminacia?

Si but instrumentura save si kerdine po drom te žutil pes e manušenge save si e viktimura rasikane diskriminaciaki:

# Themutne kontra-diskriminaciake zakonura;
# Aver kontra-diskriminaciake zakonura save naj direkto ande relacia diskriminaciasa numaj šaj žutin ande diskriminaciake kazusura sar si protekcia/arakhipen manušeske dignitetoski;
# E maškar-themutni konvencia pala e eliminacia svakone formaki rasistikane diskriminaciaki (ICERD), specialo o kotor/artiklo 14 (ICERD) del šaipen e komitetoske vaš e eliminacia rasistikane diskriminaciaki te kerel analiza pala e komunikacia svakone manušeski thaj vi e grupaki ande relacia pala e dukhavipen e konvenciako;
# E Europaki konvencia pala e manušikane čačimata (kotor 14) kerel prohibicia pala e diskriminacia respektosa pala e čačimata save si dinde ando fremo e konvenciako. O protokolo 12. ECHR-esko savo si putardino pala o somnipen katar o 2000-to berš, ka šuvel ande peste jekh uži prohibicia kontra/mamuj e diskriminacia;
# Ande piri aplikacia pala svako čačipen savo si šuvdino ando zakono ande relacia pala e ratifikacia save kerde e thema save si membrura Europake Konzilosko. E aktivisturen si jekh bari rola te keren presia pe governura po drom te e governura keren ratifikacia protokeleski 12;
# E Europake Uniaki direktiva savi vazdel opre egaliteto maškar e rase: Kadi direktiva kamel katar e thema te keren jekh užo kontra-diskriminaciako zakono thaj te keren jekh komiteto savo ka žutil te godo kerel pes. Kava si ande relacia e Europake Uniake zakonosa saveske membrura thaj e thema save kamen te aven membrura našti godo aven te naj len gasavo zakono. E aktivisturen si jekh bari rola po drom te lenge thema keren korekcia pala piri legislacia.

O ERRC marel pes mamuj i diskriminacija buteder aktiviteturencar:

# Publiciribe e informacijen vaš manušikane čačipenengi situacija e Romecar;
# Pizden (bucinen) e Romenge čačipena pe internacionalno nivelo;
# Del zor e Romenge kodolesar so kerel olenge edukacija sar te maren pes vaš olenge manušikane čačipena;
# Keren e dokumentura vaš kris e Romenge save čačipena si hagerde pe lokalno thaj pe inter-nacionalno nivelo.

Te pačan kodo kaj mamuj tumende si kerdi varesavi diskriminacija thaj trubuj tumen lokalno fiškatoro, te keren buči olesar šaj te roden kotar o ERRC granto vaš legalno reprezentiribe. I informacija vaš aplikacija šaj te arakhen pe amaro website (

- ) pe romani thaj inglišicko čhib vaj kotar e manuša so keren buči ano ERRC.

# Ma bistren, i legalno akcija majvažneder ano maripenmamuj i diskriminacija. Numa, i legalno akcija korkori peske, bizo impakto avrijal si numa jekh individualno kejso. Akcija vaš manušikane čačipena majmišto si te ovel planirimi ki koordinacija. Majmišto si kana kodola akcije kerena pes e lokalne thaj internacionalne medijencar NGO-encar, maškargaverneskere organizacijencar thaj vaverencar. Ki Ostrava, sar egzamplo, na numa so sikavdam kaj deš thaj panč čhavore si segregirime kotar e edukacijako sistemo, amen kerdem vi kodo;
# Kerdem pres konferencija manušenge kotar e lokalne thaj internacionalne medije te phenas vaškodo kaj o zakono naj mišto;
# Ikaldam liloro pe čehko thaj pe ingliš te sikavas e segregacija pe čehiko edukacijako sistemo;
# Kerdem buči lokalne organizacijencar thaj grupencar angleder thaj pala kodo dijem pe kris;
# Sa e materijali so kedindžam sar ERRC dijem avri ko UN Komiteto vaš rasako diskriminacijako eleminiripe thaj ko Europako konsilesko komiteto mamuj rasizmo thaj natolerancija;
# Majodorig kerasas kontakto medijencar thaj žurnalistencar te das somajbaro publiciteto vaš kodi buči.

E ERRC-eske mištes ka aven save te si diskusije aktivistoncar, organizacijencar vaš sa so tumen ka sikaven intereso an kodi diskriminacija. Buteder informacije šaj te arakhen pe amaro web site (

- ) vaj kontaktosar po

Po Box 906/93
H-1386 Budapest 62
Hungary

Tel.: (36 1) 41 32 200
Fax: (36 1) 41 32 201
E-mail: office@errc.org

O ERRC ande akava momento kerel jekh nevo projekto khetane duje organizacienca-Interights andar o Londono thaj Migration Policy Group andar o foro Brussels. Lengo khetano areslipen si te keren maj bari šansa te so maj but vazden pes opre e anti-diskriminaciake krisimata thaj e advokatura save si kerdine andar e Europake Uniaki Rasikani Direktiva-protokolo 12 pala o ECHR. Te kamen te len than ande kava projekto savo kerel promocia pala e anti-diskriminaciaki legislacia ande sasti Europa vaj kamen te akceptuin maj but informacie pala kadale aktiviteta šaj keren kontakto amare ofisosa.
=====================================================================================

Maškar-themutno Pakto pala e civil thaj politikake čačimata - International Convenant for Civil and Political Rights

4 June 2004

Angluno alav

E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto,

Gindosa kaj si ande relacia e kanonurenca save si vazdine ando Charteri Jekhethaneske naciengo, manušesko digniteto, egalutne čačimata baza pala e sloboda, čačipen thaj patja ande sasti luma. Kaj kadale čačimata svakone manuše si kana bianel pes;

Gindosa kaj ande relacia Univerzal deklaraciasa pala e manušikane čačimata idealo manuše trubul te avel civil thaj politikake čačimata te na avel les dar thaj kaj godo šaj te avel numaj kana kerel pes šaipen te svako utilizil pire civil thaj politikake čačimata sar vi pire ekonomikane,social thaj kulturake čačimata,

Gindosa kaj o Charteri Jekhethaneske naciengo tradel e themen te anglunaren/vazden maj opre e manušikane čačimata,

Gindosa kaj svakone manuše si obligacia anglal aver manuša thaj anglal o komuniteto kaj trail/dživdinel thaj kaj si obliguime te respektuil thaj te vazdel maj opre e čačimata andar kava Pakto,

Khetane glasonca vazde opre kadale kotora:

I

Kotor 1

1. Svakone theme si čačipen te korkore anel decizji pala peste.Ande relacia pala kava čačipen von slobodo alosaren piro politikano statsuso thaj slobodo keren piro agrikulturako, societatosko thaj kulturako buxljaripen.

2. Po drom te realizuil pire areslimata svakone theme si čačipen te kerel so kamel pire natural-barvalipasa numaj te na rumul e obligacie save inkljen avri andar maškar-themutni agri-kulturaki ko-operacia.Khonik našti jekhe themese lel godola natural-barvalimarta sostar vov trail.

3. E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto vi kodola saven si responsabiliteto te len sama pe teritorie save naj lenge trubun te ažutinen te e nacionura realizuin pire čačimata te korokore alosaren piro drom thaj te respektuin svako čačipen ande relacia pala e kotora andar e Jekhethaneske Naciaki Deklaracia.

II

Kotor 2.

1. E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto lie pe peste obligacia te repektuin e čačimata, andar kava Pakto, svakone manušese savo si pe lengi teritoria bi diferenciako specialo ande relacia pala e rasa, kolori, si o manuš murš vaj džuvlji, čhib, politikako vaj varesavo aver gindipen, barvalipen,biandipen vaj varesavo aver statuso.

2. E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto lie pe peste obligacia te ande relacia pala piro maj baro zakono thaj ande relacia pala e paragrafura kadale Paktosko keren akcia te len opre kadale aktivitetura saven si zakonesko vaj aver karakteri save si lačhe te realizuin pes e čačimata andar kava Pakto thaj save naj planirime.

3. E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto lie pe peste obligacia te:

a) den šaipen svakone manušese saveske čačimata thaj slobode(save si vazdine ande kava Pakto) si phagardine, te kerel jekh rovipasko lil vi te kodo phagaripen kerda varesavo oficielo manuš;

b) den šaipen te e krisura vaj aver zakoneske institucie len sama pala e manušenge čačimata save bičhalde rovipasko lil thaj te buxljaren o šaipen pala e kriseske juristikane drabura.

c) den šaipen te e oficial themeske institucie vorbin thaj anen decizji pala svako rovipako lil.

Kotor 3

E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto lie pe peste obligacia te den egalutno čačipen vi muršenge vi džuvljange te avel len politikake thaj civil čačimata save si vazdine ande kava Pakto.

Kotor 4

1. Ande vrama kana si e egzistencia jekhe naciaki dukhadini e e thema save somnisarde kava Pakto šaj keren aktivitetura (ande relacia pala e situacia)savenca ka phagaren e obligacie andar o Pakto.Numaj kadale aktivitetura trubun te aven ande konekcia e maškar-themutne čačipasa thaj či troman te keren diskriminacia savi si bazirime pe rasa, kolori, si o manuš murš vaj dzuvlji, čib, religia, etnikano bučim.

2. Maj paluno paragrafo či del šaipen te na respektuin pes e kotora 6, 7, 8, (paragrafo 1 thaj 2), 11, 15, 16, thaj 18.

3. E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto save kamen pe jekh skurto/cikni vrama te na respektuin kava Pakto ka infomišin perdal o general sekretari Jekhe-thaneske naciengo vi aver thema pala e paragrafura e Paktoske save phagarde thaj sostar godo kerde. Kavi procedura ka keren vi kana palapale kamen te utilizuin normalo o Pakto.

Kotor 5

1. Ni jekh paragrafo andar kava Pakto či tromal te hatjarel pes kaj varesavo them,grupa vaj manuš šaj kerel vareso po drom te phagarel e čačimata andar kava Pakto vaj te kerel varesavo limito maj baro deso si godo phendino ando Pakto.

2. Či tromal te kerel pes nisavo limito katar e fundamental manušikane čačimata save si vazdine opre vaj katar varesave save si pe zor ande varesave thema save somnisarde kava Pakto.

Kotor 6

1. Svakone manušes si čačipen po dživdipen.Kava čačipen trubul te avel protektuime zakonosa.Ni jekh manuš našti lel korkore-vojako averesko dživdipen.

2. Ande thema kaj naj phagardini e mudaripaski doš, gasavo decizji o krisi šaj phandel numaj pala maj phare mudaripske aktura save kerde e bange manuša thaj kava decizji či tromal te avel ande kontra relacia kadale Paktosa vaj e Konvenciasa pala o phagaripen thaj došaripen e manušengo save kerde genocido.

3. Kana sikavel pes kaj si varesavo mudaripen genocido atoska či jekh paragrafo kadale kotoresko či del šaipen e themese savo somnisarda kava Pakto te phagavel varesavi obligacia savo lia pe peste kana somnisarda kava dokumento vaj e Konvencia pala o phagaripen thaj došaripen e manušengo save kerde genocido.

4. Svakone manušes savo si došardino po mudaripen si čačipen te kerel rovipasko lil thaj te o krisi del leske aver doš. Amnestia vaj parudipen mudaripaske došaski o krisi šaj del pala svako kazuso.

5. E mudaripaski doš našti kerel pes pe manuša save si maj terne dešu-oxto beršendar thaj našti kerel pes pe khamne džuvlja.

6. Ni jekh them savo somnisarda kava Pakto našti akharel pes pe varesavo paragrafo kadale kotoresko po drom te na kerel vaj lungarel mudaripaski doš.

Kotor 7

Pe či jekh manuš naj slobodo te kerel pes tortura vaj varesavo dukhavipen. Specialo naj slobodo te kerel pes varesave medicinake egzamura bi manušeske mulimasko(te o manuš godo či kamel).

Kotor 8

1. Na-oficielo (korkore vojako) intjaripe varesave manušesko ando phanglipen naj slobodo. Vi kin-bikinipen e manušengo naj slobodo.

2. O manuš manuše či tromal te intjarel ande gasavi relacia te jekh lendar či džanel te trail bi averesko.

3.a) O manuš našti tradel avere manuše te kerel butji te vov godo či kamel.

b) O paragrafo a) kadale kotoresko či trubul te hatjarel pes kaj o manuš savo si došardino katar o krisi našti tradel pes te kerel butji.

c) Či xatjarel pes sar tradipen pe butji:

(i). te si kava krisesko decizji(paragrafo b)

(ii). te si godo butji savi o manuš kerel ande armia,thaj svako aver nacional butji savi rodel e manušendar te keren vareso ande relacia pala o zakono.

(iii). Svako butji savi kerel pes ande varesave special situacie (vramaki bibaxt,maripen) thaj save šaj keren bari bibaxt e societatoske.

(iv). Svako butji savi si kotor pala e manušeske civil obligacie.

Kotor 9

1. Svakone si čačipen pe sloboda thaj khonik našti avel phandino korkore-vojako. Khonik našti avel phandino te godo naj muklino katar o krisi thaj te naj si ande relacia e zakonosa.

2. Svakonese ko avel phandino ande so maj cikni vrama ka phenel pes sostar si phandino thaj thaj so maj sigo ka phenel pe lese so si leske bangimata.

3. Svako ko si phandino godolese kaj kerda varesavi doš ka avel ande so maj cikni vrama tradino anglal o krisari vaj varesavo aver oficielo manuš thaj ande jekh normal periodo ka avel leske krisime vaj ka avel muklino andar o phanglipen.Te šuven pes ando phanglipen e manuša save si bange či trubul te avel varesavo kanono vaj muklipe pe sloboda varesave manušesko trubul te avel ande relacia pala e garancia (savi trubul te del pes) kaj o bango manuš ka iril pes kana avel o krisipen vaj kana godo trubul.

4. Svakone savo si tradino ando phanglipen si čačipen te kerel rovipasko lil e krisoske po drom te o krisi anel decizji si lesko tradipen ando phanglipen kontra o zakono. Te si, atoska vov trubul te avel muklino andar o phanglipen.

Kotor 10

1. O manušesko digniteto ka respektuil pes svakonese savo si ando phanglipen.

2. a) O manuš pe savo gindil pes kaj si bango (numaj o krisi godo oficialo inke či phenda) intjarel pes na khentane e došarde manušenca,so si ande relacia lenge special statutosa kaske o krisi vadži či krisisarda.

b) E manuša maj terne dešu-oxto beršendar pe save gindil pes kaj si bange ( numaj o krisi godo oficialo inke či phenda) ka šuven pes ande special phandipa te na aven khetane e manušenca save si maj purane dešu-oxto beršendar.

3. E došale manuša save si terne ka aven telal jekh special režimo kasko reslipen si te bararen len sar lačhe manušen thaj te palapale bičhalen len sar neve manušen ando societato.

Kotor 11

Khonik našti avel phandino numaj godolese kaj či džanel te realizuil varesavi themeski obligacia.

Kotor 12

1. Svakones si čačipen ando jekh them te slobodo phirel thaj te trail kaj kamel te si muklino leske ande relacia pala o zakono te avel ande godo them.

2. Svako manuš si slobodo te džal andar varesavo them thaj vi andar piro.

3. Opre ramosardine čačimata šaj aven limitirime numaj katar o zakono save si importante te protektuil pes o nacional sekuriteto, sa-themengo sastipen, morali, čačimata thaj slobode avere manušengo thaj ande harmonia avere čačimatenca andar kava Pakto.

4. Khonik našti korkore-vojako opril avere manušese te del ando them savo si lesko.

Kotor 13

Aver-themesko manuš savo legalo trail ande varesavo them savo si membro kadale Paktosko šaj avel tradino andar godo them numaj kana godo decizji vazdel o them ande relacia pala o zakono thaj te godo naj problemo pala o nacional sekuritato e themesko les trubul te avel šaipen te phenel sostra či trubul te avel tradino andar godo them thaj te kerel pes vadži jekhvar analiza pala lesko kazuso. Gasave manušes ka avel vi lesko advokato.

Kotor 14

1. Savore si jekh sar aver anglal o krisi. Svakones si čačipen te avel ašundino katar o krisi savo butjarel ande relacia pala o zakono savo ka anel decizji pala svako manuš savo si tradino po krisi. E štampa (žurnala) šaj aven involvirime ando kazuso vaj ande sasto krisipen ando intereso e themeske sistemosko, manušenge moralesko,nacional sekuritatosko vaj ando kotor e krisipasko te si godo ande intereso e manušengo save si po krisi po drom te protektuil pes lengo privato trajo/džuvdipen vaj kana o krisi gindil kade gindosa kaj o publiciteto šaj dukhavel o krisimasko proceso.Svako decizji savo kerda o krisi ka avel oficielo tradino avri. Oficielo či ka aven tradine avri e decizja pala e manuša saven naj dešu-oxto berš, pala e rrom thaj rromni save kamen te agoripen piro prandipen,thaj pala e kazusura kana trubul te anel pes decizji ko ka lel sama pala e čhavre kana o rrom thaj e rromni agorin piro prandipen.

2. Svako manuš pala savo o krisi gindil kaj si bango šaj xatjarel pes sar užo dži kaj o krisi či sikavel kaj si bango.

3. Svakone manuše pala savo o krisi gindil kaj si bango si čačipen:

a) te, ande maj cikni vrama užes thaj pe čhib savi hatjarel,avel lese phendino pala soste si bango;

b) te si les vrama te kerel preparacia sar te protektuil pes anglal o krisi thaj te vakarel pire advokatosa saves korkore ka alosarel;

c) te na lungarel pes lesko krisipen;

d) te avel personalo po krisipen thaj te protektuil pes korkore vaj advokatose ažutimasa,te avel lese phendino sarsave čačimata si les.Svako decizji savo vazdel o krisi ka avel publiko;

e) te pučen pes sa e /džanale/e manuša save phenen kaj si vov bamgo/ thaj te pučen pes vi kodola manuša/džanale/ save phenen kaj vov naj bango;

f) te avel les bi pokinimasko o manuš savo ka ričhibarel lese o krisipen te vov či hatjarel e čhib;

g) te khonik či tradel les te phenel kaj si bango anglal o krisi.

4. Kana kerel pes krisipe e manušenge saven naj dešu-oxto berš ka lel pe sama pe leske berša thaj po lengo intetreso.

5. Te o krisi anel o decizji kaj si o manuš bango svakone manuše si čačipen te lesko kazuso džal pe maj baro krisi.

6. Kana phagavel pes maj palal o final krisipasko decizji vaj kana o manuš avel muklino andar o phanglipen godolese kaj si varessave neve faktura save sikavaen kaj vov naj bango atoska o krisi ka del love/pokinel e manušeske ande relacia e zakonosa.

7. Te si e manušese krisisardo pala vareso,thaj te si kerdini final decizja khonik našti maj but,vadži jekhvar,te došarel les pala godo.

Kotor 15

1. Khonik či ka dikhel pes sar bango pala varesave aktura save naj juristikane doša ande themesko vaj maškar-themutno čačipen ande vrama kana sesa kerdine. Pe aver rig khonik našti došarel pes maj but deso godo o zakono phenel.Te maj palal kana kerda o bangipe o zakono vazdel kaj šaj maj lokhes te došarel pes, o bango manuš šaj godo te utilizuil.

2. Khanči ande kava paragrafo naj kontra o fakto te krisil pes e manušenge pala e aktura save sesa ande vrama kana si kerdine juristikane doša ande relacia pala e general juristikane kanonura.

Kotor 16

Svakones si čačipen te kamel katar svako them te respektuil lesko juristikano personaliteto/manušipen.

Kotor 17

1. Khonik našti kontra o zakono te del ande varekasko privato dživdipen ,ande leski familia, ande leske lila thaj khonik našti kontra o zakono meljarel varekasko digniteto.

2. Svakones si čačipen te rodel oficial protekcia katar gasave aktivitetura.

Kotor 18

1. Svakones si čačipen po slobodo gindipen,thaj te slobodo alosarel e religia.Kava čačipen trubul te hatjarel pes sar korkre-vojaki manušeski decizja te ačhel ande piri religia vaj te lel varesavi aver religia savi o manuš kamel sar vi te korkore vaj khetane averenca sikavel piri religia.

2. Khonik či ka kerel vareso so ka dukhavel leski sloboda, vaj alosrel e religia vaj sitjuvipen savo či kamel.

3. Sloboda te sikavel pes piri religia vaj sitjuvipen šaj limitiril numaj o them po drom te kerel sekuritatoski protekcia,sastipaski protekcia,te protektuil o morali vaj fundone slobode avere manušenge.

4. E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto lie pe peste obligacia te respektuin e sloboda dadeski thaj dejaki te sikaven e religia thaj te bararen pire čhavren sar von kamen.

Kotor 19

1. Khonik khanikas či tromal te dukhavel godolese kaj gindil averčhande.

2. Svakones si čačipen te phenel so gindil; kava čačipen intjarel ande peste sloboda pala o rodipen,sloboda te akceptuil thaj te buxljarel svako ideja thaj informacia vakarimasa, perdal o lil, perdal e štampa vaj maškar o artistipen vaj sar godo o manuš kamel.

3. E slobode andar o paragrafo 2. kadale kotoresko cirdel pala peste special obligacie thaj responsabilitetura.Vov (o paragrafo 2. kadale kotoresko) šaj avel limitirime numaj ando fremo e zakonesko kana trubul te:

a) respektuin pes e čačimata thaj digniteto avere manušengo;

b) protektuil pes nacional sekuriteto sa-themengo sastipen vaj morali;

Kotor 20

1. Svako propaganda savi vazdel opre o marime si oprime.

2. O zakono ka opril svako nacional,rasaki vaj religiaki na-tolerancia.

Kotor 21

E manušen ci čačipen te khetanin pes. Kava čačipen šaj limitiril pes naumaj ande relacia pala o zakono thaj ando intereso pala o nacional sekuritato, sa-themengo sastipen, morali vaj ando intereso e čačimasko avere manušengo.

Kotor 22

1. Svakone si čačipen te khetanil pes avere manušenca vaj šaj kerel sindikatura thaj te lel than ande lende po drom te protektuil pire interesura.

2. O čačipen andar o paragrafo 1. kadale kotoresko šaj limitiril pes ando fremo e zakonesko thaj ando intereso pala o nacional sekuritato,sa-themengo sastipen,morali vaj ando intereso e čačimasko avere manušengo.Kava čačipen šaj opril e armia thaj e policia.

3. Či jekh paragrafo kadale kotoresko či ka del šaipen e themen, save somnisarde e Konvencia pala e maškar-themutni organizacia e butjaripaski andar o 1948-to berš pala e sindikal slobode thaj protekcia sindikal čačimatengo, te keren zakoneske aktivitetura save ka dukhaven e garancie andar kadi konvencia.

Kotor 23

1. I familia si baza e societatoski thaj si las čačipen te o them thaj o societato protektuil las.

2. E muršen thaj e džuvljan si čačipen te prandin pes te si len berša pala godo.

3. Našti kerel pes o prandipen te jekh katar e manuša save prandin pes či kamel.

4. E theme save somnisarde kava Pakto ka keren e aktivitetura po drom te den egalutne čačimata e muršenge thaj e džuvljange save si prandime thaj vi kana kamen te phagaven godo prandipen.Te si o prandipen phagardino ka kerel pes o decizji sar ka protektuin pes e čhavre.

Kotor 24

1. Svakone čhavore, bi diferenciako pala e rasa, kolori, dal si murš vaj džuvlji, čhib, religia, nacional thaj societatosko bučim, barvalipen vaj bijandipen, si čačipen pe protekcia katar leski familia, societato thaj o them kaj trail.

2. Svako čhavoro ka registruil pes kana bijanel pes thaj ka avel lese dindo anav.

3. Svakone čhavore si čačipen po themutnipen.

Kotor 25

Svakone civilo bi diferenciako savo si ramosardino ando paragrafo 2.kadale kotoresko si čačipen thaj šaipen:

a) te kerel varesavi oficial butji vaj korkore vaj perdal pire reprezentantura;

b) te alosarel thaj te avel alosardino pe alosarimata, te si les egalutno alosarimasko čačipen sar vi averen;

c) te egalutne kondicienca sar vi aver kerel varesavi oficialo butji ande piro them.

Kotor 26

Savore si anglal o zakono jekh sar aver thaj savoren si čačipen pe egalutni zakoneski protekcia bi diferenciako. O zakono ka opril svako diskriminacia thaj ka del garancia savorenge pala zurali protekcia kontra svako diskriminacia, specialo pala e diskriminacia savi si bazirime pe rasa, kolori, dal si o manuš murš vaj džuvlji, čhib, religia, politikako vaj aver gindipen, nacional vaj societatosko bučim, barvalipen vaj varesavo aver statuso.

Kotor 27

Ande thema kaj train/dživdinen etnikane, religiake vaj čhibake minoritetura e manušen save si membrura kadale minoritetorenge si šaipen te vael len lengo kulturako dživdipen, te slobodo sikaven thaj vazden opre piri religia vaj te vakaren pe piri čhib.

Kotor 28

1. Ka kerel pes o komiteto pala e manušenge čačimata/xakaja (maj dur ande akava Pakto ka akharel pes Komiteto). Kadale komiteto ka avel dešu-oxto membrura thaj les ka aven varesave funkcie;

2. E komitetoske membrura ka aven e manuša andar e thema save somnisarde kava Pakto thaj von trubun te aven respektuime manuša saven si baro morali thaj save džanen but pala e manušikane čačimata.Ka lel pes sama sode si importanto te ande kava komiteto len than e manuša saven si juristikani expirianca.

3. E membrura e komitetoske alosaren pes thaj len than ando komiteto ande piro anav.

Kotor 29

1. E membrura e komitetoske alosaren pes po garudino alosaripen katar o lil savo si kerdino pe principura save si vazdine opre ando kotor 28. Kadale principura khetane vazde opre e thema save si membrura kadale Paktosko.

2. Svako them savo si membro kadale Paktosko šaj del sugestia pala duj pire manuša save ka aven membro kadale Komitetosko.Kadale manušen trubul te avel themutnipen kodole themesko savo dia sugestia pala lende.

3. Jekh manuš šaj avel butivar membro e Komitetosko.

Kotor 30

1. Maj angluno alosaripen ka kerel pes maj but šov čhon katar o djes kana kadale Pakto avel čači zor.

2. Maj cerra štar čhon anglal o djes kana kana alosrael pes o Komiteto ande relacia pala o kotor 34. o general sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo lilesa akharel e themen save si membrura kadale Paktosko te alosaren e kandidaturen pe save von gindin kaj šaj aven membrura e Komitetosko.kava proceso kerel pes vi kana šuvel pes ando Komiteto o membro savo ka avel ando-than varesave avere manušesko savo našti maj but te avel ando Komiteto.

3. General sekretari Jekhathaneske naciengo ke kerel jekh lista pala e kandidatura e komitetoske,thaj ka ramol/lekharel andar save thema aven thaj maj palal kadi lista ka bičhalel sa e themenge save si membrura kadale paktoske maj but jekh čhon anglal e alosarimata.

4. E membrura e komitetoske alosaren pes po kidipen e themengo save si membrura e Paktoske savo kerel o general sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo ando bešipasko than e organizaciako.Pe kava kidipen pe savo trubun te aven mej cerra duj trite kotora e themenge save si membrura e paktoske (kvorumo) ka alosaren pes kodola kandodatura saven si maj but glasura thaj apsoluto butipen e glasonengo katar e thema save si membrura thaj save si ande godo momento prezentuime po alosaripen.

Kotor 31

1. Ando Komiteto našti avel maj but jekhe manušestar andar jekh them .

2. Kana keren pes e komitetoske alosarimata ka lel pes sama te ande leste alosaren pes e manuša andar sa e thema.

Kotor 32

1. E Komitetoske membrura alosaren pes pe štar-beršengo periodo.Von šaj aven palpale alosardine te e thema katar aven den sugestia pala lende vadži jekhvar.O mandato pala e inja manuša save si alosardine pe maj anglune alosarimata agoril pes pala duj berša;maj palal maj anglune alosarimatengi e anava kadale membrurengi ka aven alosardine po loto katar o prezidento e kidipasko ande relacia pala o paragrafo 4. 30-to kotor.

2. Kana nakhel o mandato ka keren pes e alosarimata ande relacia pala e paragrafura thaj e kotora andar kava Pakto.

Kotor 33

1. Te si godo khetano gindipen avere membrurengo kaj jekh membro e Komitetosko či kerel maj but piri butji na numaj pe jekh vrama, o prezidento e Komitetosko phenel godo e general sekretareske Jekhethaneske naciengo savo maj palal del avri kaj si jekh čučo than pe savo sasa o manuš savo našti maj but kerel kadi butji.

2. Te varesavo membro e Komitetosko merel vaj či kamel maj but te kerel kadi butji o prezidento so maj sigo del kadi informacia e general sekretareske Jekhethaneske naciengo savo tradel avri e informacia kaj si jekh čučo than ando Komiteto.

Kotor 34

1. Kana si e informacia tradini avri kaj si jekh čučo than ando Komiteto ande relacia pala o kotor 33. thaj te o mandato e membrosko savo trubul te avel parudino na agoril pes ande šov-čhonengo periodo katar o djes kana si oficielo tradino avri kaj si jekh čučo than, o general sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo tradel kadi informacia sa e themenge save si membrura kadale Paktosko, save šaj ande duj-čhonengo periodo den sugestia pala pire kandidatura ande relacia pala e paragrafura andar o 29-to kotor, po drom te šuvel pes varesavo nevo manuš po čučo than ando Komiteto.

2. O General sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo ka kerel abecedaki lista kandidatorengi thaj ka bičhalel e themenge save si membrura kadale Paktosko. O alosaripen ka kerel pes ande relacia pala e paragrafura andar kava Pakto.

3. Svako membro e Komitetosko savo si alosardino po than savo ačhilo čučo ande relacia pala o kotor 33. Lel than ando butjaripen e Komitetosko katar o djes kana agorisarda pes o mandato e membrosko kasko than ačhilo čučo ande relacia pala o 33-to kotor kadale Paktosko.

Kotor 35

E membrura Komitetoske šaj akceptuin/aresen vi e pokin muklipasa General bešipasko Jekhethaneske naciengo telal e kondicie save ka vazdel opre o General bešipen samasa sode si importanto thaj responsabilo o Komiteto.

Kotor 36

1. O General sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo del žutipen (love,manuša) savo trubul e Komitetoske te so maj lačhe kerel piri butji.

Kotor 37

1. O General sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo akharel e Komitetoske membruren po maj angluno kidipen ando bešipasko than Jekhethaneske naciengo.

2. Palal o angluno kidipen, o Komiteto khetanil pes kana si godo ramosardino ande lengo butjaripasko lil.

3. Kidipa e Komitetoske keren pes ando bešipasko than Jekhethaneske naciengo vaj ande Jekhethaneske naciengo departmano ando foro Geneva.

Kotor 38

Svako membro e Komitetosko trubul maj anglal deso ka avel membro te del vakaripen po kidipen pe savo trubul te phenel kaj užes thaj lačhe kerel piri butji.

Kotor 39

1. O Komiteto alosarel pire manušen pe duj-beršengo periodo.Von našti palpale te alosaren pes.

2. O Komiteto korkore kerel piro butjarimasko lil;vov ka intjarel ande peste vi kadala paragrafura:

a) dešu-duj membrura keren o kvorumo;

b) decizja e Komitetoske keren pes perdal glasonengo butipen membrurengo save si prezentuime po kidipen.

Kotor 40

1. E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto lie pe peste obligacia te den raportura pala e aktivitetura save keren po drom te realizuin e čačimata andar kava Pakto sar vi te ramon sarsave anglunipa kerde po drom te e manuša xatjaren kadala čačimata:

a) ande jakh-beršesko periodo katar o djes kana kadale Pakto sasa čači zor ande kodo them;

b) kana o Komiteto godo kamel.

2. Sa e raportura ka bičhalen pes general sekretareske Jekhethaneske naciengo savo ka bičhalel len e Komitetoske savo ka kerel lengi analiza. Ando raporto ka sikavel pes, te godo trubul, pe faktura thaj pharimata save si problemo po drom te o Pakto(leske kotora) lačhe realizuin pes.

3. O general sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo šaj maj palal kana kerel konsultacie e Komitetosa del e raportura varesave special institucienge.

4. O Komiteto kerel analiza pala e raportura save si dinde katar e thema save sominisarde kava Pakto.Vov bičhalel kadale themenge vi raportura save vov (o Komiteto)kerda sar vi varesave general sugestie.O Komiteto šaj bičhalel e Konzilonenge pala e ekonomia tha social butja e sugestie khetane e lilesa savo akceptuisarda katar e thema save somnisarde kava Pakto.

5. E thema save somnisarde kava Pakto šaj den e Komitetoske gindimata pala sa e ugestie save ka keren pes ande relacia pala e paragrafo 4.kadale kotoresko.

Kotor 41

1. Svako them savo somnisarda kava pakto šaj akharel pes po kava kotor ,kana godo kamel, thaj te phenel kaj lel kava Komiteto sar čačo te akceptuil thaj kerel analiza pala e raportura ande save varesavo them, savo somnisarda kava Pakto, phenel kaj aver them andar o Pakto či kerel sar trubul pire obligacie.E raportura save si bičhaldine pe baza kadale kotoresko šaj akceptuin pes vaj šaj kerel pes lengi analiza numaj te godo kerda o them savo del pakiv e Komitetoske.O Komiteto či ka akceptuil e raportura katar e thema save či den pakiv lese. Ande relacia pala e raportura save ka akceptuin pes ka keren pes kadala aktivitetura:

a) te jekh them savo somnisarda kava Pakto gindil kaj varesavo aver them andar o Pakto či utilizil e paragrafura e Paktoske atoska o them savo kava gindil šaj bičhalel lil godole themese ande savo ka phenel so naj lačhe.Ande trin-čhonengo periodo katar o djes kana o them akceptuisarda o lil vov trubul te iril o lil vaj te phenel e themse savo bičhalda o lil so si thaj sar si.

b) Te ande šov-čhonengo periodo, katar o djes kana o them akceptuisarda o lil katar aver them o problemo vadži naj phagardino vi jekh vi aver them ka bičhalen pire lila e Komitetoske thaj ka bičhalen godo lil vi jekh averese.

c) O Komiteto šaj kerel varesavo decizji numaj kana dikhel kaj si sa utilizuime,sa juristikane draba, ande relacia pala sa e barvalipa maškar-themutne čačipaske.Kava drom či utilizuil pes kana e utilizacia juristikane drabengi lungarel o proceso.

d) O Komiteto kerel e kidimata kana kerel analiza raporturengi andar kava kotor.

e) Ande relacia pala o punkto c) o Komiteto ka avel serviso e themenge saven si problemo jekh averesa po drom te kerel pes jekh amalikani solucia thaj te respektuin pes e manušikane čačimata thaj slobode save respektuil vi kava Pakto.

f) Pala svako kazuso savo si bičhaldino o Komiteto šaj rodel katar e thema saven si problemo jekh averesa te den sa e informacie save si importante pala o kazuso.

g) E themen, saven si problemo jekh averesa save si vazdine opre ando paragrafo b),si čačipen te aven prezentuime ande vrama kana o Komiteto kerel analiza pala o pučipen thaj te vakarimasa (direkto) vaj lilesa (indirekto) phenen pire sugestie.

h)E Komiteto si obligacia te del o raporto ande dešu-duj čhonengo periodo/vrama katar o djes kana akceptuisarda raporto pala savo vakarel pes ando punkto b)

i) te si vazdini opre e solucia ande relacia pala e paragrfura andar o punkto e),o Komiteto ande piro raporto ka limitiril pes pe faktura so sasa thaj sarsavi si solucia kerdini.

j) te e solucia ande relacia pala punkto e) našti vazda pes opre o Komiteto skurto ande faktura ka phenel sostar. O ramosardino teksto pala dinde sugestie thaj e sugestie save si numaj phendine katar e thema save sesa subjekto e kazusosko ka del pes khetane e raportosa.O raporto ka bičhalel pes vi kadale themenge.

2. E paragrafuren, kadale kotoresako, ka avel čači zor kana deš thema save somnisarde kava Pakto den piro vakaripen ande relacia pala o paragrafo 1) kadale kotoresko. Kadale vakarimata e thema save somnisarde kava Pakto ka deponuin ka general sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo savo ka bičhalel lengi korespodencia vi avere themenge save somnisarde kava Pakto. O vakaripen šaj cirdel pes ande svako vrama jekhe lilesa savo trubul te bičhalel pes e general sekretarese. Kava cirdipen či ka avel ande relacia varesave pučipasa pala savo lia te kerel pes analiza;Kana o general sekretari akceptuil o vakaripen ande savo o them phenel kaj kamel te cirdel pes, katar godo them či akceptuil pes maj but či jekh raporto te o them palapale či del piro vakaripen.

Kotor 42

1.a) Te varesavo pučipen savo si bičhaldino e Komitetose ande relacia pala o kotor 41. naj phagardino lošasa pe liduj thema maškar save sas o problemo,o Komiteto šaj muklipasa kadale themengo te kerel ad hoc komisia pala o “palem-phralipen”.Kadi Komisia ka del vojasa sa piro ažutipen themenge maškar save si o problemo po drom te kerel pes jekh amalikani solucia pe baza savi respektuil vi o Pakto.

b) Ande Komisia bešen šov membrura muklipasa e themengo kasko problemo trubul te phagarel pes.Te kadala thema či phanden maškar peste ko ka aven e membrura e Komisiaki ande trin-čhonengo periodo e membruren ka alosarel e Komisia po garudino alosaripen.

2. E membrura e Komisiake keren kadi butji ande piro anav.Von našti aven katar e thema savengo problemo e Komisia trubul te phagarel. E membrura e Komisiaki našti te aven či e manuša andar e thema save či somnisarde o Pakto thaj maj palal e membrura e Komisiaki našti aven či e thema save či die piro vakaripen ande relacia pala o kotor 41. kadale Paktosko.

3. E Komisia ka alosarel pire prezidento thaj ka kerel piro butjarimasko lil.

4. E Komisia normalo kerel pire kidimata ando bešipasko than Jekhethaneske naciengo vaj ande ofiso Jekhethaneske naciengo ande foro Geneva.Kadale kidimata šaj keren pes vi po than kaj godo e membrura e Komisiake khetane e general sekretaresa Jekhethaneske naciengo kamen.

5. O Sekretariato andar o kotor 36. del pire servisura e Komisienge ande relacia pala kava kotor.

6. E informacie save akceptuil thaj kerel lengi analiza o Komiteto šaj utilizil e Komisia,pal e Komisia šaj rodel katar e thema saven si intereso te del len sa informacie save trubun len.

7. Kana kerda analiza pala sa e pučipa ande relacia pala e čačimata save si vazdine ande akava Pakto maj but ande dešu-duje čhonengo periodo e Komisia del raporto e Komitetoske prezidentose savo maj dur del informacia e themenge saven si intereso;

a) te e Komisia ande dešu-duje čhonengo periodo našti phagavel o problemo voj ka ramol ande piro raporto dži kaj aresli po drom te phagavel o problemo;

b) te e thema maškar peste phagarde o problemo e Komisia ka ramol sarsavi solucia e thema vazde maškar peste thaj so si e faktura;

c) te či phagarda pes o problemo ande relacia e punktoski b),e Komisia ramol ande piro raporto e konkluzie pala sa e faktura save si ande relacia pala o problemo maškar e thema save krisin pes maškar peste sar vi pire gindipa sar šaj te phagavel pes o problemo.Kava raporto intjarel ande peste ramosarde sugestie thaj vi vakarimaske sugestie save die e thema save krisin pes maškar peste;

d) te si o raporto e Komisiako dindo ande relacia punktosa c) e thema save krisin pes maškar peste ka phenen godo e Komitetoske prezidentose, ande trin-čhonengo periodo katar o djes kana akceptuisarde o raporto, čaljol lenge vaj na e Komisiako raporto.

8. E paragrafura kadale kotoresko či dukhaven e Komitetoske ingerencie save si ramome ando kotor 41.

9. Sa e pokinimata Komisiake membrureske egal ka pharuven maškar peste e thema save krisin pes pal e estimacia kerel o sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo.

10. General sekretare Jekhethaneske naciengo si šaipen,te godo trubul,te pokinel e Komisiake membrurenge pala lengi butji maj anglal deso e thema save krisin pes godo keren ande relacia pala o punkto 9. kadale kotoresko.

Kotor 43

Komitetoske membrura thaj e membrura andar e ad hoc Komisia pala o “palem phralipen” save šaj aven alavardine ande relacia kotoresa 42, si čačipen pe prvilegie thaj imuniteto savo del pes e manušen save keren varesavi butji pala e Jekhethaneske nacie kade sar si vi phendino ande varesave kotora Konvenciaki pala e privilegie thaj imunitetura Jekhethaneske naciengo.

Kotor 44

O paragrafo pala e utilizacia kadale Paktoski ka kerel pes telal e kondicie save si vazdine pala e manušikane čačimata thaj ande relacia maj bare zakoneske instrumenturenca thaj Konvencianca Jekhethaneske naciengo thaj special instituciengo.E themenge či ka opril pes te arakhen varesavo aver drom sar te phagaven o problemo ande relacia pala general vaj special maškar-themutne kontrakturenca save si ande godola thema pe čači zor.

Kotor 45

O Komiteto del svako berš raporto e Jekhethaneske nacienge pala piro butjaripen perdal e ekonomiake thaj social konzilura.

Kotor 46

Či jekh paragrafo andar kava Pakto či trubul te hatjarel pes sar dukhavipen paragrafurengo andar o Charteri Jekhethaneske naciengo thaj maj bare zakonengo special instituciengo ande save užes phenel pes relacia thaj responsabiliteto Jekhethaneske nacienge organurengo thaj special instituciengo ande relacia pala e pučipa save vazdel kava Pakto.

Kotor 47

Či jekh paragrafo andar kava Pakto či trubul te hatjarel pes sar dukhavipen e čašimasko savo si e themengo vaj svako naciako te apsoluto thaj slobodo utilizuin pire natural barvalimata.

Kotor 48

1. Kava Pakto si putardo pala o somnipen svakone themse savo si membro Organizaciako pala Jekhethaneske nacie,savakone themese savo si membro lenge special insitucienge,svakone themese savo somnisarda o statuto Maškarthemutne čačipaske krisosko thaj svakone avere themese kas akharel e general kidipen Jekhethaneske naciengo te avel membro kadale Paktosko.

2. Kava Pakto perel telal e ratifikacia.E instrumentura pala e ratifikacia ka deponuin pes ka general sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo.

3. Kava Pakto ka avel putardino pala o somnipen svakone themese pe savo gindil pes o paragrafo 1.kadale kotoresko.

4. O le-thanipen avere themengo ka kerel pes kana deponuin pes e instrumentura pala o le-thanipen ka general sekretari Jekhthaneske naciengo.

5. O general sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo ka phenel, informišil, sa e themen save somnisarde kava Pakto ko deponuisarda e instrumentura pala e ratifikacia vaj ko si o nevo them savo kamel te lel than.

Kotor 49

1. Kadale Pakto ka avel čači zor trin čhon maj palal kana deponuil pes tranda thaj pandžto instrumento pala e ratifikacia ka general sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo.

2. Pala svako them savo ratifikuil kava Pakto vaj lel than ando Pakto maj palal kana deponuil tranda thaj pandžto instrumento pala e ratifikacia.E Pakto ka avel čači zor trin čhon maj palal kana godo them deponuil piro instrumento pala e ratifikacia.

Kotor 50

E paragrafura kadale Paktosko utilizin pes pe kompleto them bi limitosko.

Kotor 51

1. Svako them savo si membro kadale paktosko šaj del sugestia pala lesko parudipen vaj sugestija so trubul vadži te ramol pes ando Pakto thaj godo teksto te bičhalel general sekretareske Jekhethaneske naciengo.General sekretari ka bičhalel e sugestie vaj parudimata e themenge save si membrura e Paktoske pučipasa kamen vaj na te kerel pes konferencia pe savi ka kerel pes analiza trubul vaj na te akceptuin pes e themenge sugestie. Te maj cerra jekh-trito kotor e themengo kamel te kerel e konferencia atoska o general sekretari ka kerel e konferencia ando fremo Jekhethaneske naciengo. Svako parudipen vaj nevipen pala savo alosaren maj but katar opaš thema save ande godo momento si po alosaripen ka akceptuil pes katar o General kidipen Jekhethaneske naciengo.

2. Kadale parudimata vaj nevimata ka aven pe čači zor kana akceptuil len o General kidipen Jekhethaneske naciengo thaj kana avel akceptuime katar duj-trite kotora themengo save si membrura e Paktoske.

3. Kana kadale parudimata vaj nevimata aven pe čači zor von ka aven obligacia pala sa e thema save akceptuisarde len pal aver thema ačhen phandine paragrafurenca kadale Paktoske thaj e parudimatenca tha nevimatenca save maj anglal akceptuisarde.

Kotor 52

Vi paša e informacia savi ka del pes thaj pala savi si ramome ando paragrafo 5. Kotor 48. O general sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo ka informišil sa e themen ande relacia pala o paragrafo 1. kotor 48:

a) pala e somnipa save si šuvdine pe kava Pakto thaj pala e ratifikaciake instrumentura pala o le-thenipen save si deponouime ande relacia pala o kotor 48;

b) pala o djes kana avel pe čači zor kava Pakto ande relacia pala o kotor 49. thaj pala o djes kana avel pe čači zor svako parudipen vaj nevipen ande relacia e kotoreski 51.

Kotor 53

1. Kava Pakto savo si ramosardino pe: anglikani, kinezikani, španolikani, francikani thaj rusikani čhib ka avel deponuime ande arhiva Organizaciaki jekhethaneske naciengi.

2. General sekretari Jekhethaneske naciengo ka del o teksto kadale Paktosko svakone themese pe savo gindil pes ando kotor 48.
====================================================================================
Konvencia pala e manušikane čačimata, bazične slobode thaj lengo arakhipen/protekcia - Romani language version of substantive provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

4 June 2004

Kerdino ande foro Rome, 4-to novembri 1950. berš

E thema save die signatura/somnato telal kadi konvencia, sar membrura pala e Europako khetanipen,

Ande relacia pala e univerzalno deklaracia vaš e manušenge čačimata savo o generalno kongreso jekhethaneske naciengo trada oficielno avri ando 10-to decembri 1948 berš;

Gindosa kaj kadale deklaracia si sar reslipen te garantuil e čačimata save si andre ramome;

Gindosa kaj si e Europake kongresosko reslipen/ciljo te kerelpe so majbaro khetanipen maškar leske membrura te buvljarelpe thaj arakhenpe e bazične čačimata thaj slobode sar jekh katar e droma pe savo trubul te džalpe;

E Europako kongreso vadži jekh drom/inke jekhvar phenda kaj si e manušeski sloboda baza pala e saste lumaki čačimata thaj paća ande sasti luma thaj kaj kava majlačhe šaj te realizuilpe maškar e politikaki demokratia, pe jekh rig, thaj pe dujto rig kava šaj te realizuilpe te sa e manušen si gindo kaj trubun te respektuinpe e manušenge čačimata;

Kamipasa te sar e Europake themeske governura saven si jekh gindipen thaj jekh politikaki tradicia, idealura, slobode thaj čačimata keren khatane jekh akcia te realizuin e čačimata save si ramome ande univerzalno deklaracia,

Khetane kerde kadale kotora:

JEKTO šERUTNO KOTOR

Kotor 1

E thema save kerde kadi konvencija garantuin svakonese čačimata thaj slobode save si ramosarde/skrinisarde ando jekto kotor kadale konvencijako.

Kotor 2

1. Čačipen po trajo/dživdipen si svakone manušes thaj godo si protektuime zakonosa. Khonik khanikas či tromal te mudarel numaj o krisi šaj anel decizji pala e manušesko mudaripen te o manuš kerda baro došalipen.

2. Te o manuš arakhel pes thaj te maudarda avere manuše godolese/vaš odi kaj aver manuš kamla te mudarel les godo či lel pe kontra o čačipen/zakono.
a) Varesavo mudaripen či lelpe kontra o zakono te sas kerdino te arakhelpe/protektuilpe varesavo manuš katar o dukhavipen;
b) Či lel pe’ kontra o zakono/čačipen kana o šngalo/policiako manuš šuvel došale manuše ando phanglipen;
c) Či lel pe kontra o zakono/čačipen te e policia/šngale keren aktivitetuta kontra e violencia.

Kotor 3

Khonik khanikas či tromal te dukhavel.

Kotor 4

1. O manuš manuše či tromal te kinel thaj bikinel.

2. Khonik khanikas či tromal te tradel te kerel varesavi butji savi o manuš či kamel.

3. Tradipen po butjartipe naj:
a) e butji savi o manuš kerel kana si an phanglipe savi si an relacija pala o kotor

5. an kadi konvencija;
b) e butji kana o manuš džal an armija/katenija vol kana kerel varesavi aver butji andothan te či kamel te džal an armija/katenija;
c) e butji savi o manuš kerel kana si ando them varesavi bari kriza;
d) e butji savi si kotor katar e manušeski civilno obligacija.

Kotor 5

1. Svakones si čačipen pe sloboda thaj te arakhel/protektuil piro manušipen. Khonik khanikastar či tromal te lel leski sloboda numaj te:

a) o krisi anel decizji kaj si o manuš bango atunči/atoska o manuš šaj džal ando phanglipe;
b) te si o manuš phanglino godolese kaj či kerda vareso so sas leski obligacija an relacija pala e themesko čačipen;
c) te si o manuš phanglino godolese kaj o krisi trubul te krisil kontra leste;
d) te šuvelpe an phanglipe varesavo manuš saves naj deš-ohto berš savo kerda varesavi doš thaj o krisi kamel te šuvel/thol les an varesavi specijalno institucija pala e terne manuša;
e) te si o manuš phanglino godolese kaj si nasvalo thaj godo nasvalipe šaj te džal vi pe aver manuša, te si o manuš dilo, te si alkoholiko, te o manuš phirel dromenca thaj te naj les kher;
f) te na delpe varesave manušese šaipen te del ando varesavo them, vol te e policia kerel varesave aktivitetura ande direkcija te kerel varesave manušeski deportacija vol extradicia.

2. Svako ko si šuvdino/thodino ando phanglipe ka avel informišime, ka phenelpe lese, pe čhib savi hatjarel sostar si šuvdino ando phanglipen.

3. Svako ko si šuvdino/thodino ando phanglipen ande relacija pala o kotor 1/c ka avel so majsigo bičhaldino ka krisari vol varesavo aver oficielno manuš saves si oficielno šaipen te krisarel. E došale manušeske ka krisilpe an na-lungo vrama/periodo thaj te na avel bango ka avel muklino pe sloboda. Kana o došalo manuš mukelpe pe sloboda trubul les garancija kaj ka avel/irilpe po krisipen.

4. Svakone manušes savo si tradino ando phanglipen si čačipen te oficielno džanel sostar si šuvdino ando phanglipen thaj te arakhelpe kaj naj bango, trubul te mukelpe andar o phanglipen.

5. Svakone manušes savo si šuvdino ano phanglipen bi-došalipasko/bi-bangipasko si čačipen te rodel katar o krisi kompenzacia.

Kotor 6

1. Svakones si šaipen kana anelpe decizja pala leske civilne čačipena thaj obligacije, vol te vareko tradel les po krisi, te rodel oficijelno krisipe. O krisipe šaj kerelpe oficijelno vol šaj kerelpe prohibicija te na aven e žurnalistura te si godo an themesko intereso, te godo rumul o morali, te si godo an intereso pala e manuša savenge krisilpe saven naj deš-ohto berš, te si godo an intereso pala e manuša te keren pe protekcija pala lengo trajo.

2. Svako ko si tradino po krisi ka avel užo dzi kaj o krisi či arakhel leski doš.

3. Svakones ko si tradino po krisi si kadala čačipena:

a) te so maj sigo džanel sostar si tradino an phanglipe thaj godo trubul te phenel pe’ lese pe čib savi hatjarel;
b) te si les vrama te kerel piri protekcija anglal o krisi;
c) te kerel protekcija anglal o krisi vol korkore vol perdal piro reprezentanto volte naj les love te o krisi arakhel lese varekas ko ka kerel leske protekcija;
d) te pučel oficijelno anglal o krisi e manušen save džanen so si lesko bangipe vol te kerel kade te vareko aver oficijelno anglal o krisi pučel e manušen so si lesko bangipe. Pe aver rig o krisi trubul te pučel oficijelno vi e manušen save džanen kaj o manuš saveske krisarelpe naj bango;
e) te o manuš saveske krisilpe či hatjarel e čhib pe savo kerelpe krisipen kontra leste o krisi trubul te arakhel lese e manuše savo ka kerel leske translacija pe čhib savi vov hatjarel.

Kotor 7

1. Khonik našti avel bango te kerda varesavo bangipe ande vrama kana godo oficijelno naj sas bangipe ni po raštrako/themesko čačipen ni po maškarthemutno čačipen. Pe aver rig o krisi našti vazdel majbari doš e manušeske deso so godo o čačipen phenda ande vrama kana si o bangipe kerdino.

2. Kava so si skrinisardo an kotor 7/1 či trubul te lelpe nasul. Te o manuš kerda vaesavo nasulipe savo si kontra o manušipe vov ka avel tradino po krisi.

Kotor 8

1. Svakones si čačipen po familijako thaj privatno trajo, thaj khonik khan ikaske lila či tromal te ginavel.

2. E šerutne institucije či troman te phagaven kadale čačimata, save si ramome ando paragrafo 1. kadale kotoresko. Kadale čačimata šaj phagavenpe numaj te si goda ande themesko intereso.

Kotor 9

1. Svakones si čačipen te slobodo gindil, thaj te sikavel piri patjiv/religia. Kava čačipen del šaipen vi te lel pe (pharuvel pe’) aver patjiv. O manuš šaj vol korkore vol khetane averenca, oficijelno vol privatno ten kerel piri patjiv.

2. Svakones si sloboda te alosarel e religija savi kamel thaj e prohibicia pala e religija šaj keren numaj e themeske čačipake institucie an relacia pala o zakono te protektuinpe e themeske interesura, o sastipen o morali vol te prtektuinpe e čačimata thaj e slobode averenge manušenge.

Kotor 10

1. Svakones si čačipen po slobodno vakaripen. Svakones si čačipen pe piro gindipen. Svakones si čačipen pe piro gindipen.

2. Sar kadale slobode cirden pala peste vi varesave responsabilitetura e themeske institucie ka keren vi varesave limitura ande relacia pala o zakono thaj save si ando intereso pala e nacia, pala o teritorialno integriteto, save si kontra o kriminalo, pala e moralno thaj sastipaski protekcia, te protektuiilpe e manušengo respekto, te protektuinpe varesave intimne/garudine informacie, te protektuilpe o krisi thaj lesko respekto.

Kotor 11

1. Svakones manušes si čačipen te khetanilpe avere manušenca thaj vi te kerel o sindikato vol te avel e sindikatosko mambro thaj kade te protektuil pire interesura.

2. Pala kadala čačimata ka kerenpe cikne limitura save si ande zakonengero fremo thaj save si ando nacionalno intereso, save si kontra o kriminalo, te protektuilpe e manušengo sastipen thaj o morali, te protektuinpe e čačimata thaj e slobode averenge manušenge. Kadale kotoresa či kerelpe limito te e manuša save butjaren ande oficielne institucie sar policia, armia/katona keren godo ando fremo pire butjako.

Kotor 12

E džuvlja thaj murša saven si berš pala o prandipen šaj prandipe thaj šaj keren piri familija an ralacija pala e themeske zakonura thaj čačimata.

Kotor 13

Svakonese kaske si phagarde e čačimata thaj e slobode ande relacia pala kadi konvencia si šaipen po jurisdikano drabo anglal e nacionalne institucie bi diferenciako ko phagarda e manušeske čačimata, dal si godo manuš kaj kerel oficielno themeski butji vol na.

Kotor 14

Čačipen pe slobode save si ramome ande kadi konvencia si svakones bi diferenciako dal si o manuš murš vol džuvlji, bi diferenciako pe rasa, po kolori/farba, pe čhib, pe religia, politikako vol aver gindipen, nacionalno vol socialno statuso, konekcia varesave nacional-minoritetosa, si o manuš barvalo vol na, kaj si biandino vol aver statuso.

Kotor 15

1. Kana si varesavo maripen vol aver baro bilačhipen pala e nacia o them, leske oficielne institucie šaj keren vi aktivitetura save naj an relacija kadale konvenciasa. Kava phagaripen e konvenciako kerelpe numaj kana si varesavi importantno situacia numaj vi atoska o phagaripen trubul te avel ande relacija e maškathemune čačimatenca.

2. O angluno paragrafo kadale konvenciako či del šaipen te na respektuilpe kotor 2. kadale konvenciako, numaj te varesavo manuš avel mudardino ando maripen vol te si kerdino vareso ande relacia pala o kotor 3,4(paragrafo 1.) thaj kotor 7.

3. Svako them savo dija piri signatura telal kadi konvencija šaj lel pire čačimata te cirdelpe pe rig numaj kadalestar trubul te informišil e general sekretare Europake kongresoske thaj te phenal save aktivitetura ka kerel thaj sostar. O them majpalal informišil e Europake kongreso kana ka ačhavel kadale aktivitetura thaj kana ka lenpe palal e konvenciake kotora.

Kotor 16

Či jekh paragrafo andar e kotora 10, 11, 14 či tromal te hatjarelpe kade te e thema save dije piri signatura/somnatura telal kadi konvencia či den e duralutne manušenge, save naj andar godo them, te keren politikake aktivitetura ande godo them.

Kotor 17

Khanči ande kadi konvencija či tromal te hatjarelpe kade te varesave themen, gruponen vol manušen si čačipen te keren varesave aktivitetura save džan ande direkcija te phagaren varesave slobode, vol te keren prohibicija pala varesave slobode majbut deso si godo ramosardino ande kadi konvencia.

Kotor 18

Limito pala varesave čačimata thaj slobode save si ramosardine ande kadi konvencia či ka hatjarenpe nasul/bilačhe thaj či troman te lenpe ande direkcija savi naj ando fremo kadale konvenciako.
====================================================================================
Fremuni konvencia pala e protekcia/ arakhipen nacional minoriteturengi - The Framework Convention for the Protectionof National Minorities

20 May 2005

(Strasbourg, 10-to novembri 1994-to berš)

# E thema save si membrura Europake Konziloske thaj aver thema save somnisarde kadi fremuni konvenciaÍľ
# Gindosa kaj si o areslipen Europake Konzilosko te kerel so maj baro jekhipen maškar pire membrura po drom te protektuil thaj te realizuil e idealura thaj e principura save si khetano barvalipenÍľ
# Gindosa kaj si maj lačho drom te realizuil pes kava areslipen protekcia e manušenge čačipengoÍľ
# Mangipasa te kerel pes godo so e themenge prezidentura save si membrura vazde ande Wiena ando 9-to oktobri 1993-to beršÍľ
# Mangipasa te prtektuin e nacional minoriteturenge čačimata save train pe lenge teritorieÍľ
# Gindosa kaj e historia sikada kaj si e protekcia nacional minoritetorenge maj vasno/importanto po drom te kava kontinento ačhel stabilnoÍľ
# Gindosa kaj jekh čačo, pluralistikano amalipen/societato trubul te respektuil na numaj etnikano,kulturako, lingvistikano thaj konfesionalno identiteto varesave manušesko savo si minoriteto kaj trubul te kerel kondicie te o manuš buvljarel piro identitetoÍľ
# Gindosa kaj si tolerancia thaj dialogo maškar e manuša importanto/vasno ando jekh societatoÍľ
# Gindosa kaj pala e prosperitetno Europa trubul bari ko-operacia maškar e lokalne thaj regionalne organura thaj gindosa kaj khonik či tromal te lel avereski teritoriaÍľ
# Respektosa pala e konvencia vaš e protekcia manušikane čačimaski thaj bazikane slobodimata vi ande relacia e protokolurencaÍľ
# Respektosa pala e obligacie po drom te protektuin pes nacional minoritetura andar e konvencia thaj andar e deklaracia Jekhethaneske Naciengi thaj andar e dokumentura katar e konferencia pala e Europaki ko-operacia, thaj specialno pala e dokumentura andar o Kopenhagen 29.-to jun 1990-to beršÍľ
# Mangipasa te keren principura save trubun te respektuin pes te ande thema save si membrura thaj vi ande aver thema save šaj len kava instrumento kerel pes protekcia pala e nacional minoritetura lenge čačimata thaj slobodimata respektosa pala o teritorial integriteto thaj vi nacionalo integriteto e themengoÍľ
# Mangipasa te realizuin e principura save si skrinisarde/ramome ande kadi konvencia respektosa pala e nacionalne zakonura thaj e governonge politikaÍľ

Khetane phande:

Ĺ ero I

Kotor 1.

Protekcia nacional minoritetorenge lenge čačimata thaj slobodimata si jekh katar šerutne butja ande fremo e maškarthemutne protekciasa vaš e manušikane čačimata thaj kadale aktivitetura len pes sar maškar-themuni ko-operacia.

Kotor 2.

E paragrafura kadale konvenciake ka utilizuin pes numaj lačhipasa, hatjarimasa thaj toleranciasa thaj maj palal ka respektuin pes e principura pala e lačhi ko-operacia maškar e thema.

Kotor 3.

1. Svako manuš savo si nacional-minoriteto ka avel slobodo te alosarel te avel dikhindo sar vi si vol na thaj či ka avel les bilačho statuso godolese kaj alosrda sar kamla.

2. E manušen save si nacional minoriteto si čačimata save si skrinisarde/ramome ande kadi konvencia vol korkore vol khetane averenca.

Ĺ ero II

Kotor 4.

1. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia obliguisarde pes kaj ka e nacional minoriteturenge garantuin egaliteto anglal o zakono thaj egalutni protekcia. Ande kava konteksto naj slobodo te kerel pes varesavi diskriminacia kontra varesavo manuš savo si nacional minoriteto.

2. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia obliguisarde pes kaj ka keren, kana trubul, e aktivitetura po drom te realizuil pes egaliteto maškar e manuša save si nacional minoriteto thaj aver save na-j ando kulturako, ekonomikano, politikano thaj societosko dživdipen. Ka lel pes sama pala e specifikane kondicie ande save dživdinen varesave nacional minoritetura.

3. E aktivitetura save si oficielno vazdine opre ande relacia pala o paragrafo 2. či trubun te len pes sar diskriminacia.

Kotor 5.

1. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia lie pe peste obligacia te keren lačhe kondicie po drom te e nacional minoritetura arakhen thaj buvljaren piri kultura thaj protektuin piro identiteto, religia, čhib thaj e tradicia.

2. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia obliguisarde pes kaj či keren e politika savi džal po drom te kerel asimilacia nacional minoriteturengi kontra lengi voja thaj ka protektuin kadale manušen katar svako akcia savi džal po drom te kerel asimilacia.

Kotor 6.

1. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka vazden opre e tolerancia thaj maškar- kulturako dialogo thaj ka keren aktivitetura po drom te anglunaren respekto, hatjaripen, thaj ko-operacia maškar sa e manuša save train pe lengi teritoria, bi diferenciako pala lengo etnikano, kulturako, čhibako vol konfesionalno identiteto specialno ande kultura, edukacia thaj informišipen.

2. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia obliguisarde pes te keren e aktivitetura po drom te protektuin e manušen pe save si kerdini vol kerel pes tortura ,diskriminacia godolese kaj si len aver etnikano, kulturako, čhibako vol konfesionalno identiteto.

Kotor 7.

E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia ka respektuin svakone manuše savo si nacionalo minoriteto te šaj slobodo kidel pes avere manušenca, te slobodo phenel godo so gindil, ande sosote patjal thaj savi religia kamel.

Kotor 8.

E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia obliguisarde pes te oficielo phenen kaj svakone manuše savo si nacionalo minoriteto si čačipen te slobodo vakarel piri religia thaj te kerel religiake institucie thaj organizacie.

Kotor 9.

1. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia obliguisarde pes te den čačipen svakone manušes savo si nacional minoriteto po slobodo vakaripen, po slobodo gindipen te slobodo akceptuil thaj bičhalel e informacie pe leski dajaki čhib. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia ande fremo pire jurisdikane sistemosko ka keren šaipen e nacional minoritetorenge te na aven diskriminuime ando informišipen.

2. O paragrafo 1. kadale konvenciako či kerel na-šaipen/prohibicia e themenge save somnisrade kadi konvencia te den e oficielne lila manušenge save si nacional minoritetura save kamen te keren radio, TV programura vol kompanie pala o filmo.

3. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia či ka keren problemura e nacional minoriteturenge te von kamen te keren žurnala pe piri čhib. Ando fremo e zakonosko savo phenel pala o Radio thaj TV, e thema ka den čačipen e nacional minoriteturenge te keren e madia pala e mas-komunikacia pe piri čhib.

4. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia ando fremo pire jurisdikane sistemongo ka den šaipen e nacional minoriteturenge te keren butji ande media po drom te bararen e tolerancia thaj kulturako pluralizmo.

Kotor 10.

1. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia obliguisarde pes te den svakone manušese savo si nacional minoriteto šaipen te vakaren pe piri dajaki čhib vi privato vi oficielo.

2. Pe thana kaj bešen but manuša save si nacional minoriteto e thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia ka keren šaipen te vakarel pes minoriteturengi čhib vi oficielo.

3. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia obliguisarde pes te garantuin čačipen svakone manušese savo si nacional minoriteto te avel informišime pe čhib savi hatjarel sostar si šuvdino ando phanglipen te šaj protektuil pes anglal o krisi pe čhib savi hatjarel, thaj te godo trubul, te o krisi del lese manuše savo ka ričhibarel leske o krisipen.

Kotor 11.

1. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia obliguisarde pes te svako manuš savo si nacional minoriteto utilizil piro familiako anav (patronim) thaj čačo anav pe piri čhib thaj godo ka avel lesko oficielno anav.

2. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia lie pe peste obligacia te svakone manušese savo si nacional minoriteto den čačipen te pe piri dajaki čhib šuvel varesave somnura, ramosarimata vol varesave aver informacie vol privato vol oficielo.

3. Pe thana kaj dživdinen but manuša save si nacional minoriteto e thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia, ando fremo pire jurisdikane sistemongo, ka šuven e tradicional anava, e vulicenge anava thaj aver topografikane simbolura pe čhib kodole nacional minoriteturengo te godo kamen e manuša save si nacional minoriteto.

Kotor 12.

1. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia ka keren e aktivitetura ande fremo edukaciako thaj rodipasko po drom te šukaren thaj bararen e kultura, čhib thaj e religia nacional minoriteturenge thaj vi e majoriteturenge.

2. Ande kava konteksto e thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia ka den šaipen e nacional minoriteturenge te edukuin pire manušen save kamen te aven profesorura pala lengi dajaki čhib thaj maj palal von ka lotjharen e nacional minoriteturenge te kerel pes kontakto maškar e studentura save si nacional minoritetura thaj e profesorura.

3. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia lie pe peste obligacia te den egalutno šaipen savorenge pala e edukacia.

Kotor 13.

1. Ando fremo pire edukaciake sistemosko e thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia ka den čačipen nacioal minoriteturenge te vi privato keren e institucie pala e edukacia.

2. Te e nacional minoritetura kamen te keren godo so si ramosardino ando paragrafo 1. e thema save die kava šaipen na-j obliguime te finansirin/den love pala gasave projektura.

Kotor 14.

1. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia lie pe peste obligacia kaj svakone manušes savo si nacional minoriteto si šaipen te sitjuvel piri dajaki čhib.

2. Pe thana kaj bešen but manuša save si nacional minoriteto te von godo kamen o governo ka del lenge šaipen te sitjuven piri dajaki čhib vol te edukuin pes pe godi čhib.

3. O paragrafo 2. ka utilizil pes po drom te na kerel doš pala e čhib pe savi oficielno kerel pes edukacia ande godo them.

Kotor 15.

E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia ka den šaipen e nacional minoritetorenge te len than ando kulturako, societetosko, ekonomikano džuvdipen ande varesave oficielne kontaktura thaj specialno ande kodola kontaktura save save si importante e nacional minoriteturenge.

Kotor 16.

E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia či ka keren e aktivitetura save džan po drom te keren egaliteto pe thana kaj train majbut e manuša save si nacional minoritetura de so e manuša save si majoriteto.

Kotor 17.

1. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia lie pe peste obligacia te den šaipen e nacional minoriteturenge te keren kontaktura e manušenca save train ande aver thema thaj specialo e manušenca savenca si len khetano etnikano, kulturako, čhibako vol konfesionalno identiteto.

2. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia lie pe peste obligacia te na keren problemura e manušenge save si nacional minoritetura save kamen te len than ande varesave na-governoske organizacie(NGO) vi po nacionalo vi po internacionalo nivoo.

Kotor 18.

1. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia ka dikhen te phanden avere themenca duj-themutne vol but-themutne kontraktura specialo po drom te protektuin e manušen save si nacional minoritetura.

2. E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia ka keren e aktivitetura te keren ko-operacia/khetani butji po drom te ažutinen e nacional minoriteturenge.

Kotor 19.

E thema save somnisrade kadi konvencia lie pe peste obligacia te respektuin thaj utilizuin e principura andar e fremuni konvencia. E restrikcie ande relacia pala kadi konvencia ka keren pes numaj pe thana pe save e maškar-themutne jurisdikane instrumentura den godo šaipen.

Ĺ ero III

Kotor 20.

Svako manuš savo si nacional minoriteto trubul te respektuil e nacional zakonura thaj averenge čačimata thaj specialo e čačimata e themeske kaj trail sar vi averenge minoriteturenge čačimata.

Kotor 21.

Khanči so si ramosardino ande kadi konvencia či trubul te hatjarel pes sar čačipen te vareko kerel vareso so si kontra maškar-themutno čačipen thaj specialo so si kontra o egaliteto maškar e manuša, kontra o teritorial integriteto thaj politikano egaliteto maškar e thema.

Kotor 22.

Khanči so si ramosardino ande kadi konvencia či trubul te hatjarel pes sar limito vol kontra varesave manušikane čačimata save šaj aven protektuime zakonenca vol avere kontraktosa save ramosarde e thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia.

Kotor 23.

E čačimata thaj e slobodimata save si rezultato kadale konvenciako ka aven ande relacia e paragrafonenca andar kadi konvencia.

Ĺ ero IV

Kotor 24.

1. O komiteto e ministrengo Europake Konzilosko ka dikhel sar utilizuil pes kadi konvencia katar e thema save somnisarde kadi konvecia.

2. E thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia save naj membrura Europake Konzilosko ka len than ande implementaciako proceso pe modalitetura save ka keren pes.

Kotor 25.

1. Ande jekh-beršesko periodo katar o djes kana kadale konvencia avel čači zor o them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia ka bičhalel raporto e General sekretareske Europake Konziloske save jurisdikane aktivitetura si kerdine po drom te realizuin pes e principura kadale konvenciaki.

2. Pala godo svako them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia ka bičhalel e general sekretareske pe vramake periodura vol kana o komiteto ministrengo godo kamel, informacie save si vasne te realizuil pes kadi konvencia.

3. O general sekretari ka bičhalel e informacie e ministrurenge save si ando komiteto ande relacia pala e kondicie andar kava kotor.

Kotor 26.

1. O komiteto ministrengo khetane e experturenca ka dikhel dal si e aktivitetura save kerde e thema save somnisarde kadi konvencia, lačhe po drom te realizuin pes e principura andar kadi konvencia.

2. Ko thaj sar ka alosaren pes e expertura pala kadi butji ka dikhel o komiteto e ministrurengo ande jekh beršengo periodo katar o djes kana kadale konvencia avel čači zor.

Ĺ ero V

Kotor 27.

Kadi fremuni konvencia ka avel putardi svakone themese savo kamel te somnil las thaj savo si membro Europake Konzilosko. E konvencia ka avel putardi pala o somnato vi e themenge save e ministrurengo komiteto akharel te godo keren. E konvencia šaj ratifikuil pes, akceptuil pes vol šaj kerel pes laki konfirmacia. E instrumentura pala e ratifikacia, akceptacia vol ratifikacia ka aven deponuime ka General sekretari Europake Konzilosko.

Kotor 28.

1. Kadale konvencia ka avel čači zor po maj angluno djes ando čhon kana nakhel o trin čhonengo periodo katar o datumo kana e 12 thema save si membrura Europake Konzilosko die piro somnato telal kadi konvencia.

2. Svako them savo si membro Europake Konzilosko thaj savo kamel te somnil kadi konvencia trubul te ažukarel trin čhon katar o djes kana somnisarda kadi konvencia te avel las čači zor thaj te aresen e ratifikaciake instrumentura.

Kotor 29.

1. Kana e konvencia avel čači zor thaj kana keren pes e konsultacie e themenca save somnisarde kadi konvencia o komiteto ande savo bešen e Europake ministrura ande relacia pala o kotor 20. Europake konziloske statutosko šaj akharel svakone theme savo si mebro Europake Konzilosko thaj savo či somnisarda kadi konvencia ande relacia pala o kotor 27. te somnil kadi konvencia.

2. Svako them savo kamel te somnil kadi konvencia trubul te džanel kaj las ka avel čači zor maj angluno djes ando čhon palal trin čhonengo periodo katar o djes kana sesa deponuime e instrumentura pala o thanimasko linipen ka general sekretari Europake Konzilosko.

Kotor 30.

1. Svako them šaj ande vrama kana somnil vol deponuil pire ratifikaciake instrumentura phenel e teritoria kaj kamel te kadi konvencia utilizil pes.

2. Savko them šaj maj palal, lilesa savo ka bičhalel e General sekretarese, buvljarel e teritorie pe save kamel te kadi konvencia utilizil pes. Ande relacia pala kadi nevi teritoria e konvencia ka avel čači zor jekto djes ando čhon kana nakhel trin-čhonengo periodo katar o datumo/djes kana areslo godo lil e General sekretareske.

3. Svako mothovipen savo si ande relacia kadale duje maj anglune paragrafurenca šaj avel pala svako teritoria cirdini lilesa savo trubul te bičhalel pes e General sekretareske. Kadale liles ka avel čači zor ande majangluno čhonesko djes kana nakhel trin čhonengo periodo katar o datumo/djes kana aresli godi informacia katar o general sekretari.

Kotor 31.

1. Svako them savo somnisarda kadi konvencia šaj kana kamel te cirdel piro somnato katar e konvencia jekhe lilesa savo trubul te bičhalel e General sekretareske Europake Konziloske.

2. Kadale liles ka avel čači zor ande majangluno djes ando čhon savo ka avel palal e šov čhonengo periodo katar o datumo kana e general sekretreske avilo o lil pala o cirdipen.

Kotor 32.

O General sekretari Europake Konzilosko ka phenel e themenge save si membrura Europake Konziloske avere themenge save somnisarde kadi konvencia thaj svakone themese savo kamel te somnil kadi konvencia:

a) savo them somnil e konvencia

b) ko deponuisrada e ratifikaciake instrumentura

c) svako datumo/djes kana thaj kaj kadale konvencia avel čači zor ande relacia pala o kotor 28, 29, 30.

d) Svako aver akto, informacia vol lil savo si ande relacia kadale konvenciasa.

E Konvencia si kerdini ando foro Strasbourg, po 10.-to novembri 1994.-to berš pe anglikani thaj francikani šhib. Liduj tekstura si jekh sar aver thaj po jekh kopia si deponuime ande Europake konzilosko arhivo. O General sekretari Europake Konzilosko ka del čače kopie svakone themese savo si membro Europake Konzilosko thaj ka del vi svakone themese savo si akhardino te somnil vo te lel than ande kadi konvencia.
Donate Now

> Challenge discrimination, promote equality
Be Informed

> Receive our newsletter and public announcements
Join Us

> Employment and internship opportunities
Al Jazeera: Expelling the Roma

4 August 2010

more ...

horizontal rule
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS Roma Rights 2/2010 Funding Roma Rights: Structures, Practices, Challenges, Prospects

2 June 2010

The European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) is looking for original articles and other submissions (book reviews, interviews with key figures and conference reports) from a broad range of disciplines addressing the topic: Funding Roma Rights: Structures, Practices, Challenges and Prospects.

more ...

European Roma Rights Centre

H-1016 Budapest
Naphegy tér 8.
Hungary

Phone: +36 1 4132200
Fax: +36 1 4132201
E-mail:office@errc.org

Employment and internship opportunities
====================================================================================

horizontal rule
Attacks against Roma in Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic

29 April 2010

Since January 2008, in Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, anti-Roma violence has gained significant prominence in the media.