UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Serbian kinship system and its terminology Radojicic, Dragutin 1965

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1965_A8 R3.pdf [ 3.94MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0105362.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105362-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105362-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105362-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105362-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105362-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105362-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0105362-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0105362.ris

Full Text

THE  SERBIAN KINSHIP SYSTEM AND  ITS TERMINOLOGY  by DRAGUTIN B,A»,  University  RADOJICIC  of B r i t i s h  Columbia,  1964  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER  in  OF ARTS  the Department of  Slavonic  Ue a c c e p t required  THE  this  thesis  Studies  as c o n f o r m i n g  to the  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH April,  1965  COLUMBIA  In the  r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an  British  mission  for  reference  for extensive  p u r p o s e s may  be  advanced  of  written  Department  of  by  for  April,  Slavonic  1965  the  the  I further  Head o f my  Columbia,  University  agree for  that  of  of  Department  shall  per-  scholarly or  t h a t . c o p y i n g or  f i n a n c i a l gain  Studies  fulfilment  s h a l l make i t f r e e l y  this thesis  permission*  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada Date  study.  Library  I t i s understood  this thesis  w i t h o u t my  and  in partial  degree at  the  copying of  granted  representatives.  cation  this thesis  Columbia, I agree that  available  his  presenting  not  be  by publi-  allowed  ABSTRACT So  f a r as i s known the Serbian  h i t h e r t o been f u l l y explored. the  i n t r i c a c i e s and  attempt to present contemporarily  k i n s h i p system has  T h i s t h e s i s i s an attempt to explain-;  i m p l i c a t i o n s of the k i n s h i p terms. I t i s a l s o an the Serbian  k i n s h i p system h i s t o r i c a l l y as well  with the emphasis on the causes and  s o c i a l change. The  not  kinship  terminology i s examined  consequenc&e of linguistically;  the k i n s h i p system i s examined a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l l y . In t h i s r e s p e c t author f i n d s an i d e a l meeting ground of the two the  t h e s i s both d i s c i p l i n e s are i n t e r m i n g l e d ,  of each other,, The  terminology and  p a i n t s of view as p o s s i h l e . The value  l i g h t : the curses  Consanguineal, a f f i n a l  d i s c i p l i n e s . Throughout  being  p i c t u r e i s given  an  i n t e g r a l part  i n toto without a  the k i n s h i p system as r e f l e c t e d  the author a l s o presents  pertinent  the  system are examined from as many  judgment. Besides p r e s e n t i n g  in folk l i t e r a t u r e ,  as  i t in a less  favourable  to the kin-terms are a l s o mentioned,  and  ceremonial k i n are given  equal a t t e n t i o n  in t h i s t h e s i s , because the y cannot be separated s o c i o - c u l t u r a l l y . !  Consanguineal kin-terms are the same r e g a r d l e s s  of the sex  of the  a f f i n a l r e l a t i v e s have d i f f e r e n t terms depending on the sex Serbian one  kinship  of the most e l a b o r a t e  to be d e n o t a t i v e . that are not  The  terminology i s h i g h l y developed and i n e x i s t e n c e . A l l Serbian  as well as f o r those that  the. number of synonyms i s high,  Because of the introduce  some new  are.  the  reaching  the other  a  father.  great number of synonyms the author has  nomenclature:  i s most c o n s e r v a t i v e ;  indeed  f o r the ones  There are 2 1 9 terms f o r 1 1 9 various k i n s h i p c a t e g o r i e s . For  maximum of ten synonyms f o r the  ego.  kin-terms tend  k i n s h i p terms are developed e q u a l l y  g r a p h i c a l l y represented  r e l a t i v e s c l o s e to ego  of  ego;  i n t h i s t h e s i s , the terms are  STANDARD  iMOIM-STANDARD,  to term  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  I wish  t o e x p r e s s my p r o f o u n d  Mr. A.ti]. Wainman, A s s o c i a t e  Professor,  my f a c u l t y  whose g e n e r o u s h e l p  and e x p e r t  guidance  Dr.  C. B r y n e r ,  Professor,  been p o s s i b l e ; Studies, and  f o r h i s understanding  Mr, T. P o s a ,  suggestions: Univprsity information  on T u r k i s h ;  writing  my w i f e  D r . D. D o r o t i c h  f o rtheir  M r s . S, T e z c a n ,  Rada, who h e l p e d  without  Chairman o f Graduate  of Slavonic  my i n f o r m a n t s ,  advisor,  t h e s i s wauld n o t have  and e n c o u r a g e m e n t ;  - a l l o f t h e Department  individually;  this  both A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r s ,  o f B r i t i s h Columbia;  gratitude t o :  valuable  Studies  at the  f o r her competent  t o o numerous t o be m e n t i o n e d me d u r i n g  o f t h e t h e s i s i n more ways than one.  t h e p r e p a r a t i o n and  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Introduntion Rules  *  n f Descent  Classificatinn Criteria  Kin  2  o f Kin-Terms  f o r a Kinship  Some S i g n i f i c a n t to  1  the Kinship  3  Category  Aspects  ,  o f the Serbian  6 Language  Pertinent  Terminology  9  Terms  ,  Ceremonial' Kinship  11 •  Non-Kin  54  Zadruga  55  Incest  SO  Kinship The  System  Curses  as R e f l e c t e d  i n the Folk  Literature  -  Foreign  Influence  Kinship  System  63 68  on t h e S e r b i a n  Kinship  T e r m i n o l o g y and 70  Bibliography  75  Appendix  78  L I S T OF  M a l e ego  speaking  Female ego  speaking  TABLES  INTRODUCTION A l t h o u g h many a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a c c o u n t s been w r i t t e n ,  there  i s no s i n g l e c o m p l e t e  What t h e p o s s i b l e r e a s o n The  fact  enough is  remains  that  for this  there  i n k i n s h i p problems  not w r i t t e n  i s based m a i n l y  entirely  l a b e l e d as  may be i s v e r y  to write  an my p e r s o n a l  "field  work",  because they  t h e s i s . Apart  were made p r i o r  from  general  make use o f any s p e c i f i c recollection, informants  be  statistical  of  the nation  had  informal  reference  at the very  from  only  with  f o r the accuracy  rather  the thesis  b u t c a n n o t be have  than i n t e n s i v e l y ,  o f the t o p i c f o r the  to gather  That  information  from  a s many  method a f g a t h e r i n g  information  s y s t e m must, o f n e c e s s i t y , small  i s s o u g h t . The a u t h o r  a number a f i n f o r m a n t s .  in Serbia  that  thesis  works, t h e t h e s i s does n o t  was n o t p o s s i b l e , t h e i n f o r m a n t s both  this  f o r the i n f i n i t e s i m a l l y  whom i n f o r m a t i o n  interviews  interested  work. I n a d d i t i o n t o p e r s o n a l  beginning.  and t r u t h f u l  correspondence, ponsible  theoretical  to e x p l a i n .  the o b s e r v a t i o n s  of years,  as p a s s i b l e . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e  abandoned  interview  observations,  to the choice  the author attempted  was  The m a t e r i a l  because  been made e x t e n s i v e l y o v e r a p e r i o d and  difficult  on them. T h e r e f o r e ,  compilation.  have  work w r i t t e n on k i n s h i p .  has been no a n t h r o p o l o g i s t  as a l i t e r a r y  contains  on t h e S e r b s  Where  were c o n t a c t e d  instead personal through  and o u t s i d e . The a u t h o r a l o n e  of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n  contained  section  i s res-  in this  thesis.  R U L E SO FD E S C E N T The kin ties of any given individual extend into the infinite n u m b e r of ascendants. No one is able to trace out his own fully An individual can trace his descent by one of four x  a  m e t h o d s : patrilineal, matrilineal, bilateral or doubles, The descent rule in any particular society could fallow any one of the four m e t h o d s , and therefore exclude the other three. In Serbian society the descent is definitely patrilineal in the sense that an individual 2  inherits the family n a m e and Family tradition through the m a l e line. The mother's side, in spite of this, is not entirely disregarded, as could be expected. Descent on the mother's side is also traced, While paternal kin are traced as far b a c k as eight generations, maternal kin are never calculated b a c k m o r e than three generations. B y the n u m b e r of generations one can easily see w h e r e the stress lies, but it should also be noted that both sides are represented. Rather than call it double descent one w o u l d probably be closer to the truth if Serbian descent is called "revised patrilineal", Patrilocal extended family of the Serbian type is coupled with the "revised patrilineal" descent. The Serbian kin g r o u p could be m o s t closely identified as being a clan, being based both on c o m m o n residence and genealogical descent. Patrician is an accurate description of the Serbian clam, insofar as the initial definition of a clan itself is appropriate. 1 Including dynastic genealogies, w h e r e the first k n o w n progenitor m u s t be placed s o m e w h e r e and therefore a limit set, 2 The m a i n tradition is the family's biggest annual celebration of the patron saint - S L A U A or H R S N D IME.  CLASSIFICATION OF KIN TERMS ide s h a l l classifying 1.  briefly  examine e a c h  o f t h e t h r e e ways o f  k i n terms:  BY MOOE OF USE In  Serbian kinship  terminology  a l l the s u b d i v i s i o n s are  represented: a) TERM OF ADDRESS It  i s further  a kinship b)  term  to another  person.  f a c i l i t a t e d by t h e u s e o f v o c a t i v e . A p e r s o n  c a n use  when a d d r e s s i n g a n o t h e r  TERM OF REFERENCE  a speaker  Speaking  may u s e t h e k i n s h i p  c ) PERSONAL NAME name i n s t e a d generation in  Used whem s p e a k i n g  A relative  of the kinship  a d d r e s s i n g t h e member  name p l u s t h e term  e)  TEKNONYMY  It  i s uded m a i n l y  playmates  2.  BY LINGUISTIC Serbian  types  the person  c o u l d be a d d r e s s e d term.  This i s valid  of the ascending  i s not present,  with h i s p e r s o n a l f o r t h e e g o ' s own  generation.  c o u l d be a d d r e s s e d  o f reference (Radin i s not s t r o n g l y  by c h i l d r e n  that  g e n e r a t i o n s , b u t c o u l d n o t be used  A person  Teknonymy  (Ivina  person.  term.  or f o r the descending  d) COMBINATION OF b + c nal  about  directly  with  the perso  stric).  e n f o r c e d among t h e S e r b s .  i n referring  to the parents  of their  mama),  FORM kinship  of l i n g u i s t i c  form:  terminology  makes p r o v i s i o n  f o r a l l three  k  a ) ELEMENTARY TERM be  divided into  One  of  of elementary  These are  at l e a s t  elementary  two  intention  thesis  This  and  leaves  either  an  third  a total  term  who  is closer  i s not  relative.  not  needed f o r t h e p r i m a r y  3  Being  and  U With one s i n g l e (staramajka),  a morpho-  It i s also  (including  shown i n third  i n the  second.  e g o ' s own)  with  t e r m . I t i s somewhat  t o ego.  The  i s generally a device In S e r b i a n ,  a derivative reason  for  term,  this  or f o r the  quatenary,  and  unit  to describe  a descriptive  relatives,  exception,  the derivative  i n the  r a t h e r than  secondary,  terms apply  anybody  term  e v e n some q u i n a r y  of k i n s h i p systems d e r i v a t i v e  a minimum m e a n i n g  be  an  later.  who  In t h e m a j o r i t y  not  begin  term, r a t h e r t h a n  This  tertiary  generation,  or d e s c r i p t i v e  c ) DESCRIPTIVE TERM  number o f t h e  o r may  in Serbian  generations  explained  a primary  o t h e r may  terms  to a r e l a t i v e  chapter  are  be  be  applied  be  o f t h e e l e m e n t s must  It will  t o have a d e s c r i p t i v e  will  morphonemes w h i c h  kinship terminology.  of f i v e  the  done i n t h e  that  unusual  metathesis  be  kin relationship.  ascending  elementary  will  place  examples t h a t d e r i v a t i v e  descending  k i n s h i p meaning.  t o show t h e p a r t i c u l a r  terms have i n t h e S e r b i a n the  task  cannot  terms.  the  with  their  which  3  i s to demonstrate  derivational  k i n s h i p term,while  of t h i s  thesis  e l e m e n t s . One  neme s e m a n t i c a l l y c h a r g e d  i s a morphoneme"  that retain  terms. T h i s  the p a r t i c u l a r  DERIVATIVE TERM  made from  term  i n t e n t i o n s of t h i s  which d e a l s with b)  elementary  smaller particles  t h e main  prevalence  An  a  is fair  relatives.  more  8  i n the second ascending  generation  only  5  often  according  descriptive ego. the  3,  The  to the degree  terms  apply to those that  very r a r e  S e r b s , as w i l l  BY RANGE OF Serbs  approach  of distance  exeption to t h i s be  in this  respect o f two  possible  a r e what c o u l d  d e v e l o p e d . They  and c e r t a i n l y  t h e ones  to denotative  terminology  terms:  be l a b e l l e d that  The S e r b i a n ,  some c l a s s i f i c a t o r y  classificatory  of  type o f terms  terms.  as  extraordinaryly "the only  a r e most p r e c i s e  terms  like  any  true  and  in classificatory  terms. D e n o t a t i v e terms and  is precise;  other k i n - t e r m system,  I t i s o f t h e utmost  compare t h e e x t e n t o f n o m e n c l a t u r e  opposed  sets  unorthodox  particular,  b) CLASSIFICATORY TERMS  to  from  i s f o u n d among  a l s o have a somewhat  well  employs  rule  removed  shown.  S e r b s have t h i s  unmistakeably  further  APPLICATION  i n the r a t i o  terms",  a r e even  general  a ) DENOTATIVE TERMS  kin  from e g o . C o n s e q u e n t l y ,  by  support the assumption precision  i s one  importance terms  as  f a r outnumber that Serbian  o f i t s main  the  kinship  features.  S  C R I T E R I A F O R AK I N S H I P C A T E G O R Y The nine possible criteria in ascribing an individual to a kinship category, will be e x a m i n e d separately b y each criterion: 1. G E N E R A T I O N The biological fact of reproduction, and consequently of the succession of the generations, is taken very rigorously into account in the Serbian kinship terminology. N o two persons belonging to the two different generations could be described b y the s a m e kin term. It is possible, h o w e v e r , that a w o m a n can h a v e a child older than a sibling. This relative age is completely disregarded and the kin term is ascribed with the due recognition of the person's generation to which he belongs socially and biologically. If, for example, the n e p h e w is older than his o w n uncle, the kin terms will apply regardless of the fact of such a drastic inversion in the actual age. S o m e kinship systems ( C r o w , O m a h a ) are capable of promoting or dropping in the kinship terms a particular relative, for one generation. Similar occurances a m o n g the Serbs will be discussed m o r e fully in a separate division. 2  S  S E X Serbs are culturally and socially very sex-conscious, while  reciprocally they are very g e n d e r conscious in their language. The kinship terms are either masculine or feminine, giving a full recognition of the sex of the relative, A few neuter terms are applied only in the descending generation, notably for y o u n g children in their preadolescent years. Sex and g e n d e r for the Serbs are very closely related. Ideally speaking all animate n o u n s could  h a v e either a masculine or a feminine gender. The neuters are treated  7  more e x t e n s i v e l y elsewhere. The g r a m a t i c a l l y a feminine, 3. AFFINITY  p e c u l i a r term BELA PCELA i s  but a p p l i e d to the both sexes.  A f f i n i t y , as a c r i t e r i o n f o r a k i n s h i p c a t e g o r y ,  is  c a r r i e d to an extreme. More e l a b o r a t e treatment w i l l be given under the t o p i c of i n c e s t . A f f i n i t y i s c a r r i e d to such a l e n g t h t h a t male and  female ego have an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t s e t of terms f o r  r e s p e c t i v e a f f i n a l r e l a t i v e s . Those terms are a l s o k,  CDLLATERALITY  their  denotative.  L i n e a l and c o l l a t e r a l terms are r i g o r o u s l y  c o n s i s t e n t . Some merging between the two occurs  i n the case of  s i b l i n g s and c o u s i n s , but only i n a s u p e r f i c i a l manner. In the discussion concerning  cousins  i t w i l l be noted t h a t t h i s merging i s  not a bona f i d e one. C o l l a t e r a l i t y i s f u l l y r e c o g n i z e d 5.  BIFURCATION  o t h e r s . One  B i f u r c a t i o n i s recognized  also for cousins.  i n some cases and not i n  of the problems whieh t h i s t h e s i s would l i k e to s t a t e ,  but would not attempt to s o l v e , i s t h a t p e r t a i n i n g to b i f u r c a t i o n * A p a r t i c u l a r case i n p o i n t i s t h a t of  TETHA.  The  problem i s s t a t e d  elsewhere i n t h i s paper. Here i s noted only the i n c o n s i s t e n c y b i f u r c a t i o n i n the same g e n e r a t i o n , ego's  the one  t h a t immediately preceeds  own.  6. PDLARITY  P o l a r i t y has always to meet the requirements of  g e n e r a t i o n , sex d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , a f f i n i t y , c o l l a t e r a l i t y b i f u r c a t i o n . I f a person i s i n the same g e n e r a t i o n , sex, a f f i n a l o n l y ,  5  of  Never  5  and  Df the same  c o l l a t e r a l r a t h e r than l i n e a l , and the requirement  consanguineal.  B  of bifurcation is met, then the polarity can b e ignored. S u c h is the case with 3ETRVA. The six criteria that h a v e b e e n discussed so far are designated as inherent distinctions. W eh a v e s h o w n that every o n e of these w a s present in the formation of kinship terminology. T h e remaining three 'criteria that follow, therefore, for the sake of clarity could be designated as non-inherent distinctions. 7. R E L A T I V E A G E Strictly speaking the criterion of relative age is ignored in the Serbian kin-term system. In the chapter on siblings it will be s h o w n , however, that this is not entirely true a n d that s o m e provision is m a d e for the relative age of the siblings. B. S P E A K E R ' SS E X The speaker's sex is completely ignored w h e n applied to consanguineal relatives, a n d fully recognized w h e n applied to the affinal ones. 9. D E C E D E M C E This is the only criterion that is not recognized in the formation of the Serbian kin terms. The kin status of the deceased relative remains unaltered. Nevertheless, w h e n referring to a deceased relative one is b o u n d to say P D K O J N I ^ (the late) plus a kin term or a personal n a m e . T h e choice of kin or personal n a m e w o u l d b e followed in the s a m e m a n n e r as it w a s observed during the deceased person's life. Instead of pokojni another expression is heard as often, a n d that is 3 A D I \ i l 7 _ ^ the literal translation n  poor  0  6  P O K O J I M A for female,,  7 Feminine form is  J A D I M A .  9  SOME SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF THE SERBIAN LANGUAGE PERTINENT TO  THE  KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY In o r d e r b e t t e r to understand  the k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g y  and  also subtle pryshological implications, several characteristic f e a t u r e s of the S e r b i a n language,  which p l a y a very prominent p a r t  i n k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g y , s h o u l d be mentioned: 1) The  f i r s t o f these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s a g r e a t number of synonyms,,  As i n every language ( i n c l u d i n g E n g l i s h ) the number o f synonyms f o r a g i v e n t h i n g shows our a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h a t p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g . In o t h e r words, the more synonyms f o r the same t h i n g , the c l o s e r i s our association with i t .  T h i s can be c l e a r l y seen i n the e n c l o s e d  tables;  c l o s e r r e l a t i v e s to ego have more synonyms, more remote ones p r g r e s sively  fewer*  2) The second major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the language i s i t s f r e q u e n t use of d i m i n u t i v e s . They are a l s o h e a v i l y grouped around D i m i n u t i v e s are the best i n d i c a t i o n o f f a m i l i a r i t y and  ego.  affection  among r e l a t i v e s . 3) The m a j o r i t y of terms f o l l o w the same l i n g u i s t i c p a t t e r n : CDnsonant-vowel-consonant-vowel.  T h i s g i v e s a p l e a s a n t m e l o d i c sound.  The reason f o r these p l e a s a n t - s o u n d i n g terms i s to be found i n Ibfoe g r e a t a f f e c t i o n e x i s t i n g among r e l a t i v e s . k)  The v o i c e d R i s a vowel, and not a consonant.  t r i s y l l a b i c : s v e / k r / v a . The b i s y l l a b i c : po 5) The  Svekrva-:: i s  second p a r t of the phrase po k r v i i s  kr/vi.  accent i n S e r b i a n i s i n v o l v e d  aspect o f S e r b i a n grammar. The  and probably the most d i f f i c u l t  accent i s not a dynamic, but a m u s i c a l  ID  one. T h e y are two short and two long, two falling and two rising for a total of four different accents: short-falling, short-rising, long-falling, long-rising. All four of t h e m h a v e different graphical representation. Ordinarily, the Serbian text is written without the accents. In situations w h e r e the forms are identical, but accents different, they m a y b e written in order tD avoid a n y confusion. The accent for kin terminology is particularly important to .distinguish nominative-vocative b a b o (father) from vocative b a b o (grandmother) . 6) Feminine n o u n s h a v e the nominative singular desinance -a. In the kinship terminology there are very few exceptions: m o t h e r (mater), WiSi (svas), daughter (kci, kcer, e'er, seer, sci). Very seldom the masculine n o u n s h a v e the nominative singular desinance -a. In the  kinship terminology they are: baja, bata, braca, deda, dedica, deka,  V I I  v>  zetonja, pasa, prika, rodja, strika, taka, tata, tatica, teca, caca, uja, ujka, ujkica, cika, cica, sura. In addition to these all the derivatives of d e d a h a v e the s a m e desinance. y  7) Double vowel is pronounced twice: poocirru All spellings are in the Serbian language w h e n kinship terminology is involved. The pronunciation is different from English pronunciation, W e shall not give the terms in the international phonetic alphabet, since the pronunciation itself is not of primary importance far the consideration in this thesis. The language that is spoken in Serbia is k n o w n as Serbocroatian. Since s o m e Croatian kinship terms differ from their Serbian counterparts, the n a m e of the language is limited to Serbian.  11  KIN  This chapter nomenclature. but as  has the  Terminology  a very profound thesis  behaviour of  uiill  examine  i n some d e t a i l  anyone e l s e .  one  single  Serbs  i s very  The treatment there than  term  one  The one  term  In c a s e s  they  them. The always  the need  a special  determinant  they  appear.  the c o n s a n g u i n e a l examine  We  obvious  reason  of their shall  affection.  ones. that  on  be c a l l e d  This w i l l  the  f o r the that  c o u l d be  taken the  first  i n the t a b l e  Because o f  is  this  i n r e f e r e n c e to  the l i s t ,  which i s  - STANDARD TERM. A l l and  would n o t  have  a c c o r d i n g to the order i n  d i s c u s s them i n two will  consists  i s shown,  s u c c e e d i n g term  own,  relative  r e l a t i v e , tdhere more  term  t h e r e f o r e non-standard  relatives'"  the a f f i n a l  particular  the f i r s t  t h e most c o n s e r v a t i v e one,  t h e s u c c e e d i n g ones a r e  which  that  one  share  which  supplement  i s shown f o r some a r r a g e m e n t  author suggests  every  show a t a g l a n c e  where more t h a n one  as  discussed l a t e r ) .  a r e a l l synonyms and  i n the order of i n c r e a s i n g  multiplicity  sex.  f o r any  be  just  does n o t  a term  essential  themselves  i s the most c o n v e n t i o n a l . E a c h  arranged  the  a r e an  tables  is listed,  alternatively.  or almost  d e s i g n a t i o n which he  attached tables  i s more t h a n one  h i s own  (some e x c e p t i o n s w i l l  of terms.  structure,  elaborate, indeed  T h i s d e s i g n a t i o n i s always  word  convenience,  t o show. K i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g y ,  t h e most e l a b o r a t e i n e x i s t e n c e . E v e r y ,  with  kinship  b e a r i n g upon t h e whole s o c i a l  attempt  has  the  i s not m e c h a n i c a l l y d e v i s e d  p a t t e r n s , among t h e  among t h e S e r b s  of  will  TERMS  main p a r t s .  be o u r s u b j e c t , and have two  terms d i f f e r  then  First we  main s u b d i v i s i o n s  depending  upon t h e  shall for  speaker's  12  CONSANBUINEAL  They  are  independent  shown i n c r i t e r i o n be  B  of  of  the  the  speaker's  sex  7  the  where t h e E n g l i s h t e r m  the E n g l i s h i s g i v e n ; d e s c r i p t i o n i s given  whatever,  the S e r b i a n  as  was  k i n s h i p c a t e g o r i e s . The  t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y * Some i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s w i l l  the s u b t i t l e s : one  Mo,  RELATIVES  when t h e  terms d i f f e r  i s given  term  is  for a  terms  will  encountered  i s equivalent  ( f o r example F a B r ) ;  term  be  already  with  i n any  i f there  in  the  Serbian  given  trait  i s no  similarity  subtitle,  MOTHER The  standard  MAMA but to  could be,  The  be  i s the used  MAMICA  diminutives  greatest  t e r m most o f t e n  by  ms  MAJHA. MATI  her  discussed  affection.  employed  o f f s p r i n g s whatever  a diminutive  are  also.exists.  MATER  o f t e n found  young  the  age  children,  they  happen  i n the S e r b i a n  in a separate  i s a form  by  language.  s e c t i o n . They show  identical  to the L a t i n  the  one,  g and  i n comparison  term but  i s not  with  a particular  i s Indo-European,  mother,  but  one  NANA  languages  there  i s no  belonging  only  to  i s a term  t h a t can  t o one  r e c o g n i t i o n of the  of  the  two  generation  and  i s given  doubt  that  the S l a v s , or  a l s o t o a g r a n d m o t h e r . However, t h e  term a p p l i e s i t o n l y The  other  be  a p p l i e d to  person  never  who  in f u l l .  KEVA  Serbs, a  uses  interchanges is  the  the  them. one  q of The  the  only  two  assumption  B Russian, 9 Another  s l a n g words i s that  the  used origin  i n the S e r b i a n of  German, E n g l i s h , D u t c h , one  being  cale - father.  the  term  Bulgarian  kinship  i s recent, etc.  terminology, and  most  13  certainly, affects The  chronologically  kinship,  the l a t e s t  the terminology  one. In the s o c i a l  change i s t h e l a s t  n o r m a l p r o c e s s o f t h e c h a n g e i s as f o l l o w s :  residence  i s changed;: s e c o n d , c h a n g e i n t h e form  families;  third,  fourth  and l a s t  change i n the form i s t h e change  o r may n o t o c c u r . I t may three  are f u l l y  stable  equilibrium  conservatives  organization  operates.  The r e a d e r  meaning o f t h a t  should  the k i n s h i p  notice  of the extended  that  which  the  terminology  "standard"  may  previous relatively  i s most  the family or  by which t h e d i s e q u i l i b r i u m that  i n the case o f keva  but r a t h e r  Initially  yet s i m i l a r slang  the r u l e of  terminology  on c b d B d i t i o n  i n the speed  term.*^  a c c e p t e d as a  milder,  first,  When t h e s o c i e t y c h a n g e s f r o m one  no c h a n g e i n t h e t e r m i n o l o g y ,  being  one t o o c c u r .  I t c a n n o t compete w i t h s e x , m a r r i a g e ,  community  is  i n the k i n s h i p  to another,  that  o f the c o n s a n g u i n e a l k i n groups;  occur only  satisfied*  change  a slang  a subtle word,  there  change o f the  i t i s gradually  o n e . STARA - " t h e o l d o n e " has  qualities  with  keva.  FATHER The  standard  TATA of  talk  9  affection. that  is  indicates that  TATICA CACA  used  that  that  origin  Reduplication  i s probably i n  o f t h e above a n d i n c r e a s e s t h e  i s t h e p a l a t a l i z e d form  i s no e v i d e n c e  by c h i l d r e n , ,  the p o s s i b l e  i s the d i m i n u t i v e  segment o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n  10 T h e r e  DTAC.  i s t h e term most o f t e n  the s y l l a b l e  baby  term  o f t a t a a n d i s u s e d by  does n o t use t h e t e r m  k e v a has e v e r had a s e c o n d e r y  t a t a . Any  meaning.  individual is apt to be selective a n d to use only o n e of the two, but not both. T h e diminutive equivalent for caca d o e s not exist* T A T H D is used by Serbs along the Bulgarian border, a n d definitely is influenced b y Bulgarian*** T A H A is the Serbian abbreviation of the preceding t e r m , , B A B O is the only term that is b o r r o w e d from Turkish,** It has three features that are discussed u n d e r separate topics: the question of the influence of the foreign terminology u p o n Serbian; the question of accent in the Serbian language, a n d finally the question of the nominative a n d vocative case in Serbian. O n e should notice that one of the terms for a g r a n d m o t h e r is baba, w h o s e vocative case is babo. For the father - babo, the nominative and vocative case are identical. Consequently, the vocative case for both a g r a n d m o t h e r a n d a father - b a b o - is identical in form only  s  T h e accent is normally not written in Serbian. The pronunciation is quite different and no o n e can h a v e a n yd o u b t w h o m the reference is to, o n c e the term is uttered. T h e vocative case is not only preferred, but indeed the only proper o n ea n d is always used w h e n directly addressing a person. In direct address it is obvious w h o is the object of address. T h o s e people w h o refer to the father as b a b o usually choose s o m e other form of addressing the grandmother, a n d vice versa; those that use b a b a for the g r a n d m o t h e r never refer to the father with the term babo. T h e Turkish form for the father is baba, but the accent differs from the Serbian one. B A B A J H O  11 Discussed separately u n d e r the heading: Foreign influence o n the Serbian kinship terminology a n d kinship system.  is  15  the S e r b i a n language,  m o d i f i c a t i o n of the T u r k i s h  however,  if  u s e d as  in  implication  there  a masculine to  the  i s nothing  noun  i n the  term s t a r a  term  baba. In t h e  Turkish  similar.  STARI - " t h e  o l d one"  nominative  f o r the  singular, is  -  similar  mother.  BROTHER  The  first  reason. said, in  The  standard  The  non-standard  three are  the S e r b i a n  involved,  then,  the  than would  the s t a n d a r d that to  often  be  called  by  t o by  one  only  age  also for  is, strictly  t o be  called  a personal  i s in conformity social  with  life.  by  to designate  the  rule  BRALE  non-kin  a s s o c i a t i o n , r a t h e r than u s u a l l y employed  himself with  for  brat  is bratic,  but  of h i s son.  whom he  but  a person  i s not  i t does n o t  In o r d e r  i t i s customary  by  the c h i l d  brother  same  BRAT -  parents.  primogeniture, term a p p l i e d be  used  say  by  More  consanguinity. to a The  brother  "the  by  that i s to  referring  t h e rebh  never  e  have t h e m e a n i n g o f a  R0D3ENI  of the  of  brother,  i n t h a t way  well acquainted.  to d i s t i n g u i s h  t o say  the  term  eldest  It could  brother,  ignored  kin  i s the  sometimes i s u s e d  the  the  was  are  t e r m s and  in exceptional circumstances. and  it  speaking,  name. The  non-standard  BRALE.  another  However, when s i b l i n g s  of the  to a r e l a t i v e  sibling,  but  and  f o r the k i n s h i p c a t e g o r y ,  i s apt  in Serbian  than  the  by  This  one  i.e.  criteria  referred  one.  i s a term  other,  BATA, BRACA, BAOA  t o show a f f e c t i o n ,  that r e l a t i v e  being  i t i s used  Brale  BRAT,  terms a r e  eldest sibling  brother  brother  is  kinship terminology.  as a r e f e r e n c e  the  7  i s recognized  the  used  D i s c u s s i n g the  u n d e r No.  rather  term  born  younger  diminutive brother, from  the  brother",  16  SISTER The  s t a d d a r d term  SEKA, SE3A in  referring  and  to the  are non-standard  sister  similar  giris.  Dnly  the  eldest  while a l l the succeeding p e r s o n a l name.  employed  as  is called  That day  i s the reason  by  why  they  normally  of t h e i r  a r e not  and,  term, called  i s not  There  is a  way,  show  i n that  desinences,  only  also for  number, a r e  only s p o r a d i c a l l y .  t o a b b r e v i a t e a term  used  f o r the  the non-standard  i s a d i m i n u t i v e and  a f f e c t i o n . D i m i n u t i v e s , because  are  i s applied  recognizes primogeniture  c o n s t a n t l y , but  tendency  meaning  ones, r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r  SESTRICA  a term  pronounced  one  terms t h a t  to those mentioned  i n the s o c i o - c u l t u r a l  the males. K i n s h i p terminology  the  by  SESTRA.  DAOA  eldest  brother. Primogeniture to  is  are  f r e q u e n t l y employed  longer. i n the  every-  speach,  SDN The  standard  SINKO not plus  and  i n common u s e . complimentary  term  is  SINAK The  SIN.  are the a l t e r n a t i v e s .  p e r s o n a l name, w i t h  nicknames are  These terms  unlimited  are  variations,  preferred.  DAUGHTER This standard one  and  i s a primary non-standard  relative terms.  i s t h e most c o n s e r v a t i v e . The  morphology resulted  of the  language.  in truncation  that  defies  our  I t i s not p o s s i b l e reason  lies  A  dislike  f o r the  o f the  initial  K,  so  division to decide  i n the n a t u r e initial  that  on  of  cluster  original  which the of  KCERKA  KC  1 7  w a s modified to C E R K A .  B y further elimination the term a s s u m e d  the form of C E R or, if original H is preserved, it would be  K C E R ®  S o m e t i m e s the initial K is replaced by S, so that the form is SCER e  T h e alternate form is H C I a n d with the replacement of the initial V /  consonant is  SCI,  F a Br In the case of the parents' brothers the bifurcation appears. So, the father's brother is S T R I C , with the affectionate forms S T R I K O , S T R I K A , S T R I C E K .C I C A a n dC I K A are originally also the terms for the FaBr. W o w every person in the generation older than e g o ' s is cika. It is of interest to note that this form of respect for the elders a s s u m e s the form of the FaBr a n d never of the M o B r (ujak). If speculation has its place here, then the reason for this  v could be sought in the principle of patrilineal descent. C I K O  is  the alternative form for cika a n d is discussed u n d e r the general topic of the vocative. M o B r Bifurcation is fully operating a n d not o n e of the c o m b i n e d  n u m b e r of thirteen terms for M o B r a n d FaBr is identical. Beside the standard term U J A K a n d the diminutive U J K I C A , also the t w o other forms exist: U J K A a n d UJA. T h e alternatives for the last t w o are U J K O a n d U J O following the general rule that is stated elsewhere in this paper. 12 W h i c h term is chronologically older, cerka or kcerka, is not possible to state with certainty.  18  FaSi and MoSi Bifurcation, w h e n concerning sisters of the parents, ceases to exist. This inequality in the kinship terms cannot b e explained otherwise than culturally a n d historically. M o B r enjoyed a different status than FaBr a n dh e n c e the difference in the term. The parents' sisters, Dn the other hand, w e r e not significantly differentiated  and, consequently, w eh a v e a merging o f the two o w i n g to the principle  of immateriality. The two are functionally unimportant and, consequently a sufficient basis for their differentiation is lacking. FaSiHu and M o S i H u The terms are m e r g e d again as w a s described in the preceding p a r a g r a p h ™ T h e y both are associated with the e g o ' s family through marriage with the e g o ' s consanguineal relatives. B e c a u s e of this they are similar in the kinship terms with their wives w h o aifecGloser V  to ego. The terms of T E C A o rT E T A H are geographically distributed^ with the western part of Serbia favouring the latter. The fact that they are of the favoured m a l e sex is overruled b y the faift that they are related to ego through the females, w h e r e differentiation is less rigidly enforced. FaBrWi The term for FaBrtdi is S T R U M A . There is a striking similarity to the term for her h u s b a n d (FaBr). MoBrldi The term for M o B r W i is U J I M A . Again w e see the similarity in the term with her h u s b a n d (MoBr). Strina and ujna are both females  19  and have the same d i s t a n c e from ego as have t h e i r male c o u n t e r p a r t s t e c a . Yet they a r e t e r m i n o l o g i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , w h i l e p a t e r n a l and m a t e r n a l SiHu a r e not. The e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s occurrence may be sought i n the same g e n e r a l r u l e , as the e x p l a n a t i o n f o r FaSiHu and MoSiHu. The s e x of t h e r e l a t i v e i s not as important as the sex of the c o n n e c t i n g r e l a t i v e . I n both cases the sex o f the c o n n e c t i n g r e l a t i v e i s male and t h e r e f o r e t h e i r wives a r e e n t i t l e d t o the separate  terms.  COUSIN Of the s i x types d e s c r i b e d i n l i t e r a t u r e f o r the c o u s i n term]"^ Hawaiian  S e r b i a n c o u s i n terms a r e most s i m i l a r t o the s o - c a l l e d t y p e , but by no means i d e n t i c a l . I n the Hawaiian  cousin  t e r m i n o l o g y a l l c r o s s and p a r a l l e l c o u s i n s a r e c a l l e d by the same terms as those used f o r the s i b l i n g s . The author f e e l s t h a t the o n l y j u s t i c e t o the S e r b i a n c o u s i n k i n terms would be t o name them "Serbian type".  However, i t would c r e a t e a seventh d i s t i n c t c a t e g o r y ,  which probably c o u l d not be j u s t i f i e d , a t l e a s t u n l e s s s e v e r a l D t h e r e t h n i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g i e s a r e employing  t h e same  t y p e . The i n t e n t i o n o f t h i s paper i s t o s t q t e f a c t s and n o t t o c o n t r i b u t e t o the g e n e r a l a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l nomenclature.  Taking a l l  t h i s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , and a v o i d i n g the p o s s i b l e a c c u s a t i o n of e t h n o c e n t r i s m , the author must e m p h a t i c a l l y s t a t e t h a t S e r b i a n c o u s i n  13 Eskimo, Hawaiian,  I r o q u a i s , Sudanese, Omaha, Crow.  One s h o u l d bear i n mind t h a t E n g l i s h cousin-terms a r e o f the "Eskimo" type. I t i s a l s o noteworthy t o s t a t e t h a t t h e E n g l i s h k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g y i n g e n e r a l i s of the Eskimo type.  20  kin-terms are not of the Hawaiian type, but "quasi-Hawaiian", Cross-cousins and parallel-cousins h a v e exactly the s a m e status. In the s a m e generation with ego w e see the s a m e terminology, h e n c e w em a y expect a n d indeed find the s a m e pattern of behaviour. "Persons toward w h o m ego b e h a v e s in the s a m e m a n n e r he will call b y the s a m e termj ... persons to w h o m e g ob e h a v e s in a different m a n n e r he will call b y different terms",(S. Tax 1937: 20-1) Ego acts toward all relatives in his age g r o u p (both m a l e and female) as toward his siblings. There is no such a thing as a cross-cousin joking relationship or avoidance, as is observed in other societies* Cousins are called b y the s a m e term as siblingsfor the sake of simplicity in everyday speach. In the discussion of the siblings it w a s stated that w h e n e g ow a n t s to be precise, without leaving any d o u b t as to his connection to the siblings, he e m p l o y s the additional phrase rodjeni. Similarly, w h e n precision is required for cousins one has to mention the connecting relatives. The parent of the cousin is always mentioned and that is always the one that is the e g o ' s parents' sibling regardless of the sex. In  referring to the cousin then, the m a l e is mentioned twice (FaBr, M o B r ) a n d the female twice (FaSi a n d MoSi). Theoretically, then, there are eight possibilities. Ue h a v e already s h o w n that the terms for the FaSi and MoSi are m e r g e d , and consequently the n u m b e r of cousin terms m u s t be reduced b y two, so that the total n u m b e r is six. T h e y are:  B R A T 00 S T R I C A ,S E S T R A 00 S T R I C A ,B R A T 00 U J A K A ,S E S T R A 00 U J A K A , B R A T 00 T E T H E ,S E S T R A 00 T E T H E . For the first four the terms are denotative. For the last two each term applies to the two cousins:  21  MoSiCh  and  parents brat  FaSiCh.  siblings  1  od s t r i c a  This  i n c o n s i s t e n c y conforms  already  explained.  = STRICEVIC;  brat  t o t h e terms o f the  The a l t e i m a t e  od u j a k a  forms a r e :  = UJEVIC;  b r a t od t e t k e =  TETKIC.  F a F a and MoFa In ceases  the second  to e x i s t .  is  DEHA  or  is  called  ascending  The s t a n d a r d  DEDICA.  RODJENI  generation  term  is  To d i f f e r e n t i a t e  from  ego  bifurcation  DEDA, The a f f e c t i o n a t e form deda from h i s b r o t h e r s ,  he  DEDA,  FaMo and MoMo The  standard  term  The  alternative  is  is  BABA.  BAKA.  STARAMAJKA  i s the only d e r i v a t i v e  14 term  found  IMAKA  in a total  of five  generations  I t must be r e p e a t e d  that  t h e segment  term nana f o r g r a n d m o t h e r generation single  criterion  standard In  to e x i s t . own,  never  uses  interest*  t h e term nana a a s m e n t i o n e d .  o f the population t h e same term  that  uses the  f o r m o t h e r . The  i n c r e a t i n g t h e k i n terms i s a r u l e  without  a  exception.  the generation  o f ego's g r a n d p a r e n t s ,  I t i s recognizable and t h a t  generations.  14  own,  and t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f naka - NANA, a r e o f p a r t i c u l a r  'When t h e t e r m s f o r m o t h e r were d i s c u s s e d ,  his  i n c l u d i n g ego's  which  only  Non-standard.  i n the generation  f o l l o w s h i s own, making  Ego's own g e n e r a t i o n  bifurcation which  up a t o t a l  i s not included  in this.  ceases  preceds o f two  22  FaFaFa  and  MoFaFa  This  i s the f i r s t  generation  that  employs  The  term  f o r g r e a t - g r a n d p a r e n t s i s a compound  the  term  f o r g r a n p a r e n t s and  or  before.  The  term  is  the p r e f i x  compound  terms*  word, c o n s i s t i n g  PRA-  which means  15  of  pre-  PRADEDA.  FaFaFaFa The  next o l d e r  generation  uses  t h e same stem  as t h e  grand-  v parents,  but adds  the  is  term  a different  prefix. This  time i t i s  CUKUIM  and  CUKUIMDEDA.  FaFaFaFaFa A surprise Here the  the p r e f i x prefix  time but  there sake  cukun  p r a , which  (fifth now  awaits i n the g e n e r a t i o n  generation  i s disregarded was  i n the t h i r d  b e f o r e ego)  i t i s reduplicated.  i s the r e d u p l i c a t i o n of comparison  and  which  the p r e f i x  i t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t  the E n g l i s h  great-great-great-grandfather;  thus t r i p l e  the  Serbian  term  generation explain of  15  terms  the f i r s t  level  this  one.  b e f o r e ego  is  The  one  f o r many g e n e r a t i o n s w h i c h  In E n g l i s h  the f i r s t  generation  can  to  This  again, from  ego  time. For  the  equivalent  reduplication  f o r t h e male i n t h e  PRA-PRADEOA.  i n o r d e r t o show how  p r a i s used  f o r the f i r s t  is  has  from ego.  g e n e r a t i o n removed  of the p r e f i x  t h e former,.  t h e term comes back  generation  In t h e f i f t h  precedes  where fifth  I t i s n e c e s s a r y to  form an  p r e c e d e s ego's  n e x t t o ego  unlimited own.  have  For  number each  compounds.  23  preceding sixth it  generation  generation  could  another  before  be c a r r i e d  i s very  a very  developed  about heroes developed ration  it  important oral  and e x t r e m e l y  social  literature.  was m e r e l y  t h e enemy  t h e male i n t h e  and i n t h a t  s o c i e t y w h i c h had  The t r a d i t i o n  of stories  ( t h e Turks)  was h i g h l y  e l a b o r a t e . Ego knew e x a c t l y t o w h i c h was n o t i m p o r t a n t  o r as a c l a i m  an a c c o u n t  o f events,  history. A curious  of l i t e r a c y the  to a c e r t a i n i n h e r i t e d r i g h t s ; which  held  the i n t e r e s t  phenomenon i s o b s e r v e d . W i t h  and l e s s  number o f p r e c e d i n g  generations  in,  Whether t h i s  that the  o f the legend  the i n t r o d u c t i o n  on a l a r g e s c a l e and t h e d e s i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e z a d r u g a ,  a v e r a g e p e r s o n knows l e s s  i s diminishing,  negative  gene-  f o r achieving  whole s o c i e t y and were somewhere on t h e b o r d e r l i n e between and  fashion  u n l i m i t e d number o f gene-  f o r an i l l i t e r a t e  belonged. This  status  thus  PRA-PRA-PRADEDA  i n b a t t l e s against  h i s progenitor  personal  ego i s  i s added;  on f o r a t h e o r e t i c a l l y  rations. This highly  pra  value  we s h a l l  t h a t he i s aware o f , and i n t e r e s t e d i s an o c c u r r e n c e  not judge,  o f a p o s i t i v e or  I t i s worth n o t i n g ,  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p changed n o t o n l y a t t i t u d e toward  a b o u t h i s f o r e f a t h e r s . The  among l i v i n g  t h e dead p r o g e n i t o r s  however,  p e r s o n s , but  was a l s o s u b j e c t  t o modi-  fication.  BrSo While the  designation  BRATIC tion  the diminutives  of  o f t h e same r e l a t i o n ,  means a b r o t h e r ' s "little  offspring.  f o r some o t h e r  brother"  BRATAIMAC,  k i n terms a r e s t i l l  the diminutive  son, not the brother i s appropriate  BRATUCEO,  BRATUCE  of the brat  himself.  The c o n n o t a -  f o r the brother's and  BRATUCIC  -  male  are variants.  2k  S I N O V A C has in origin s o m e similarities to bratic. T h e standard term for son is sin, a n d it is obvious that sinovac is derivative, although not a diminutive. It is a denotative term applied only to the BrSo,  Both terms bratic' and sinovac are a demonstration of the preferential treatment of the trio: brother, son a n d BrSo. B r D a Linguistically a n d socio-culturally the s a m e applies to the B r D a as w a s said for her sibling. The terms B R A T I C I I M A and B R A T A N I G A are derivatives of brat. H o w e v e r , the term S I N O V I C A requires s o m e clarification. It is said that her sibling - sinovac, has a derivational term from sin, a n d that h e is considered like a "little son", not "rodjeni sin".  T h e BrSo's status is close to the status  of o n e ' s Dwn offspring, but still not identical. O n e would normally expect that the term for the B r D a should be a derivative form from the term for daughters S u c h is not the case. Sinovica is the feminine form of the masculine sinovac, disregarding the initial gender, or rather sex. In the term itself sex is still duly credited, but the circumlocution through which the term is derived is rather involved, SiSo i  S E S T R I C is a derivative from sestra. T h e alternate form is N E C A K . SiDa  v  f  S E S T R I C I N A a n d N E C A K I N J A occur approximately in equal frequencies.  25  SiHu D a H u H u S i H u T h e terms for the three relatives are m e r g e d in ZET, Alternative Z E T D N J A is augmentative, but it is m e a n t as good-natured h u m o r . T h o s e that use this alternative are well meaning, a n d the term has achieved that connotation. If a person w a n t s to use the derogatory term, then h e w o u l d never use a kin-term, but would b e forced to seek it outside the kinship terminology. Of all the Serbian kin terms there is n o single o n e which w o u l d h a v e a definite u n c o m plimentary meaning. Svekrva a n d tasta can be close to it, but the implication is not definite. S O G O R is discussed elsewhere,, Beside the three relatives m e r g e d in zet, sogor is classificatory term for the three others, m a k i n g a total of six. BruJi S o ' L O i S I M A J A is the female equivalent of the m a l e zet. T h e reader will notice that the term is relevant only to the t w o relatives, while zet is relevant to three. H e r e lies o n e of the problems which will b e stated, but the author has n o hypothesis for its solution. T h e problem will be stated in the section o n the affinal relatives, S O G D R I C A is an adaptation of the m a l e sogor according to the genius of the Serbian language, utterly disregarding its original language a n d original form. M o r e o n that problem will be mentioned in the separate section of foreign influences. Sogorica is classificatory term for the six relatives, the s a m e as a m a l e counterpart - sogor, btiit sogorica c o m p e t e s with Serbian snaja for only t w o relatives,  1 6 For the female e g o speaking.  26  while sogor is c o m p a r e d with Serbian zet for three relatives. Alternatives are S N A J K A ,S N A H Aa n d SNA. S N A S A is primarely a kinterm, but it has a s s u m e d a specific meaning. It is usually a term 17 of address for the young, married peasant w o m a n .  To narrow d o w n  the classificatory term snaja her h u s b a n d is mentioned, for e x a m p l e S N A Z A  S I N O U C E M ,  S o S o D a S o T h e standard term is U N U K . A diminutive ( U N U C E ) , which h a p p e n s to be neuter in gender, could be used alternatively for S o S o , D a S o and for the S o D a , D a D a , T h e m o r e c o m m o n use is for S o S o or D a S o . S o D a D a O a T h e standard term is  U N U K A .  T h e diminutive is U N U C I C A . P R A U N U K a n d C U K U N U N U K conform to the general rule that h a v e b e e n laid d o w n for the corresponding generations on the ascending line. T o recite t h e m would be a repetition. A clear indication of t h e m is found in the table.  17 T h e middle a g e d one is addressed as strina, while the older o n e is baka. It is of interest to note that inhabitants of the cities for the middle a g e d w o m e n use the term tetka or teta (MoSi) rather than strina (FaSi). A possible explanation for this occurrence m u s t b e of a speculative nature,' a n d will be not attempted here. 18 All diminutives in Serbian are not necessarily of the neuter gender.  2 7  P R A P R A U N U K Generally speaking it is no exception to the above-mentioned rule. H o w e v e r , it has one additional feature which is unique in the Serbian kinship terminology. N a m e l y , this is the single exception D f the sex criterion. It is also a single instance w h e r e the kinship term is other than the m o r p h o n e m e which semantically designates the kin. T h e alternate form is B E L A P C E L A a n d the literal m e a n i n g in English is  " T h e White Bee".  T h e reason for this breaking of the  n o r m for Serbian kinship terminology is not k n o w n . U e shall suggest a possible explanation without claiming the validity or exclusiveness of the explanation. In the Serbian language there exists an idiomatic expression  "Bela vrana". The literal English translation is " A White  C r o w " , or an idiomatic English equivalent is  " A Black Sheep". A  c r o w is black in colour and, therefore, "a white crow"  indicates  an exceptional rarity. A c r o w is a bird that has n o pleasant association a m o n g the Serbs, while a bee is regarded as one of the m o s t useful creatures. It is possible that ordinary "Bela vrana" w a s replaced b y "Bela pcela" because of the extraordinary affection a m o n g the relatives. P H i P R A U I M U K o r bela pcela is the fifth descending generation from ego. If w e take the generations twenty years  apart, egD would h a v e to be a hundred years old at the time of birth of the bela pcela. It is then obvious w h y ego has so seldom a bela pcela. It m a y also in a w a y explain the disregard for the sex criterion. Ego has very little interest in determining the sex of a n e w l y born b a b y five generations a n d one century his junior.  28  O n e cannot apply the s a m e rule for the generations which follow ego as can b ed o n e for the generations which precede him, for the simple reason that e g o ' s life time d o e s not allow h i m to see m o r e than four succeeding generations, a n d on very rare occasions  five. Theoretically, h o w e v e r o n em a y d o the s a m e as for the generation older than e g o (in adding pra), but this would h a v e no practical applications.  A F F I N A L R E L A T I V E S In the preceding section it w a ss h o w n that the kin terms remain identical regardless of the speaker's sex. This is valid for the consanguineal relatives only, a n d not for the affinal.  Relatives connected to ego through marriage h a v e a separate denotative assignation. Affinal relatives enjoy practically the s a m e status as consanguineal. In terminology this is exercised b yo n e w o r d terms for affinal as for the consanguineal relatives. For example, the relationship  -in-law is expressed in o n e single word. This implies  closer association b e t w e e n the t w o groups. The terms will b e briefly examined, first for the m a l e e g o speaking, a n d then for the female ego speaking.  M A L E E G O S P E A K I N G W I F E v The standard term is Z E N A , The m o r p h o n e m e zena has a multiple semantic charge. Beside  29  being a kin term for a wife, it also m e a n s aw o m a n in general a n d 19 also has a connotation of non-virgin. T h e wife is o n e of the three relatives that do not h a v e an exclusive kin-term for themselves without being a h o m o n y m . Another term for a wife is S U P R U G A  which  is not the m o s t c o m m o n one, but which enjoys the exclusiveness of term, without sharing it with the non-kin meaning. T h e third term is G D S P Q D J A , which is the least c o m m o n and w h o s e m e a n i n g primarily 20 is mon-kin. It is Mrs., being the caique from the G e r m a n . T h e terms L 3 U B A and L 3 U B 0 U C A are found only in the folk literature and are 21 seldom used in everyday speach*  The fact that the female n a m e  22 "Ljuba"  also exists is purely a coincidence. T h e term  L J U B O V C A  should not be confused with the similar w o r d "ljubavnica" - a mistress, which is, of course, not a kin-term.  IdiBr  v T h e standard term is S U R A H , Wife's primary a n ds o m e of the secondary relatives h a v e denotative terms.  UiBr is surak, with the affectionate form S U R A 4  T h e alternate form of sogor is discussed elsewhere.  19 The other two: h u s b a n d a n d "Bela pcela", 20 Die Frau, T h e term zena (as G e r m a n tdeib) is considered to b e e m p l o y e d only b y those of lower intellectual s t a t u s „ 21 Both terms are n o ws o m e w h a t archaic* 22 Abbreviation of "Ljubica". 23 C o m p a r e with English w h e r e all the affinal relatives are -in-law.  3 0  WiBrUJi T h e standard term is denotative S U R N J A J A .T h e alternate v S O G O R I C A is m e r g e d with five others. UiiSi T h e standard term is S V A S T I K A , Both S V A Sa n dS V / A J A are pronouncedly affectionate, v  S O G O R I C A ! .  is collateral m e r g e d type. In the Serbian language the  w o r d swastika, is k n o w n . It is pronounced the s a m e as the standard 2k  term for the WiSi, regardless of the difference in spelling. Swastika, is k n o w n only to the small n u m b e r of people interested in archaeology. In their jargon it is a pre-Greek ornament, used in our time b y the Nazi G e r m a n y . T h e identity is purely coincidental. T h e confusion never occurs b e t w e e n the two, UiSiHu T h e standard term is  P A S E N O G .  T h e affectionate term is P A 5 A , being the abbreviation of the former. T h e form of the abbreviation is o n e that could be normally expected. It coincides with the title of the Turkish high military 2 5 a n d governmental official. T h e abbreviated form, therefore, is V  both incidental a n d deliberate, if a pun is intended. S O G O R is again a collateral m e r g e d term shared with five others. 2k In the Cyrillic alphabet there is n o difference in spelling (cBacTHKa)  25 Pasa.  31  W i F a T h e standard, a n d the only existing term is T A S T , U i M o H e r e the s e g m e n t a r y d e m o c r a c y a n dc o m p a c t n e s s of relatives consanguineal as well as affinal, should be particularly stressed* The affection, rnutual love and help b e t w e e n relatives can never b e overemphasized as applied on Serbs. The only exception to this is the universally k n o w n peculiar relationship b e t w e e n son-in-law and m o t h e r in-law. T h e son-in-law refers to his mother-in-law b yt w o different terms a n d neither is complimentary in its etymological meaning. T h e y are either T A S T A or P U N I C A . English equivalent for tasta w o u l d b e the v a n e w o m a n , while the term punica is equivalent to the thick w o m a n or the fat w o m a n or "fatty". Gradual c h a n g e is occurring insofar as the former mild avoidance a n d probably also mild hidden hostility is being gradually replaced b y an ingenious, mostly wellintended form of h u m o u r .  F E M A L E E G O S P E A K I N G H U S B A N D  V T h e standard term is M U Z . In the contemporary language it only m e a n s a husband, Archaically it m e a n t a n ym a l e of marriageable age and older, w h o enjoys a certain social prestige. The archaic nominative plural for one with the secondary m e a n i n g is muzi. The nominative plural for  32  h u s b a n d is muzevi. In order to avoid a n y possible misunderstanding  it is of interest to note that Serbian marriage rules are m o n o a n d r o u s and never polyandrous. Therefore, the form muzevi is only of philological interest, as o p p o s e d to archaic muzi. Muzevi then socially  indicate the h u s b a n d s of as m a n y w o m e n , and d o e s not imply polyandry  v S U P R U G is the alternative. C O l / E K is the m a l e counterpart for the female zena, being its a n t o n y m . Besides serving as a kin term, its secondary m e a n i n g is a man. G O S P O D I I M is the a n t o n y m of gospodja and as a non-kin term m e a n s mister, G D S P D D A R is fading out of use, because of the social c h a n g e s that are affecting the kinship relations within the nuclear family and particularly the wife-husband relationship. It m e a n s a lord and, until the e n d of the last century, w a s in the c o m m o n use. It is n o w completely eliminated from the serious kinship terminology. If sporadically used, it has definite joking overtones. In the conclusion of this paper it will be stated to a: larger degree that no Serbian kin term, o n c e universally incorporated into the language, is ever eliminated. G o s p o d a r is not primarily a kin-term a n d the gradual elimination of it is not in conflict with the general rule. H u B r The standard term is D E V E R . T h e palatalized form of the previous is D J E V E R , • 2S should not be confused with rucni dever.  26 See the ceremonial kin!  D e v e r  33  HuBrldi The standard term is J E T R V A . Oetrva is the only affinal kin-term in Serbian w h e r e polarity is ignored. It is concomitant with their status in the e x t e m d e d or rather joint-family w h e r e the wives of t w o or m o r e brothers enjoy mutual equality. T h e jetrva, the wife of the oldest brother, has a h u s b a n d w h o enjoys preferential treatment because of primogeniture. It is limited only to h i ma n d is not transferred in a n yw a yu p o n his wife. The brothers, then m a yh a v e a different status, while their wives are equal a m o n g themselves. T h e system is adequately represented in the kinship terminology. S O G O R I C A is again appearing as a classificatory term. HuSi T h e standard term is Z A O V A . Z a o v a is the single elementary kin term in Serbian that 27 has a diphthong.  That is probably the reason w h y the language  did not g o into the invention of s y n o n y m s , comparable to other relatives. E u p h o n i s m of the term w a s perhaps on the highest level. A n y s y n o n y m would only be an anticlimax. H u S i H u T h e term for the H u S i H u is Z E T , , This is o n e of the problems which this paper will present, but for which it offers n o solutions U n d e r the heading of the yiSiHu it is stated that the standard term  27 Along with the derivatives of zaova - zaovic and zaovicina.  3k  is pasenog, and that e v e n a non-standard term - pasa - is in existence Both standard a n d non-standard terms are denotative, that is to say that they are specific in the sense that they belong to the single kinship category, the category being specific for sex, generation a n d genealogical connection. O n the other hand, the term for H u S i H u is the classificatory term zet. Zet is the term for a person w h o occupies several kinship categories. W h y the language w a s selective for the WiSiHu, a n d indiscriminative for the H u S i H u is the question. T h e difference cannot be explained b ya n y of the rules that are operating in the creation of the Serbian kinship terminology. T h e only criterion w h e r e a possible a n s w e r might be sought is in the criterion of bifurcation. It is, h o w e v e r , not clear e n o u g h to justify a n y definite claim. Collateraly H u S i H u a n d UiSiHu are on an equal basis. Regarding generation, sex, affinity a n d relative age they are identical. H u B r S o T h e term is D E V E R I C I C Dr D E V E R I C with the palatilized forms D J E W E R I C I C a n d D J E U E R I C .T h e corresponding form for the LJiBrSo d o e s not exist. All these terms are similar in form to the usual form of the Serbian family n a m e s . S o m e of t h e m are e v e n identical. T h e desinence -IC m e a n s a descendant of. In all the terms for H u B r S o the derivation c o m e s from the term dever, and h e n c e the identity in the form itself, H u S i D a •  T h e term is D E v E R I C I M A . The term for the UiBrDa is non-existent,.  35  H u S i S o T h e term is Z A O V I C . T h e term is derivative cf zaova - his mother. T h e fact that the term is derived from zaova - female, a n d not from her h u s b a n d kin term conforms to the rule of the collaterality, Z a o v a is closer to e g o than her h u s b a n d , , H u S i O a T h e term is Z A D U I C I I M A , , •Regarding the derivation, the s a m e is true as w h a t w a s said for her brother in the preceding paragraph, H u M o T h e daughter-in-law refers to her mother-in-law as  S V E K R V A ,  with the p u n form svekriva, which literaly m e a n s "guilty for everything". H u F a T h e term is S V / E K A R . T h e father-in-law on both sides (tast a n d svekar) is saved  from the uncomplimentary nomenclature similar to his wife, mother-in-law S o W i F a D a H u F a The standard term is PRIJATELJ, T h ew o r d has also the m e a n i n g of a "friend". The nonstandard term is P R I K A , which is denotative. The rule of the semantic exclusiveness of the kinship m o r p h n n e m e s is still unbroken, bearing in m i n d the exclusiveness of prika.  3 6  S o t i J o M o D a H u M o T h e term is P R I 3 A . T h e female equivalent of the m a l e prijatelj d o e s not exist, as a kitS term (pri jatel jica).  G R A P H I C A L L Y N O N R E P R E S E N T E D KIN T E R M S There are s o m e kin terms still awaiting a device for their graphical representation. A n y such device would encounter innumerable obstacles because of the differences in the kin systems. T h e o d d s are overwhelming against such a device. Lde shall not propose a n y invention. T h e reader should be a w a r e that the terms that follow cannot b e found in the enclosed tables. T h e y are, nevertheless, listed twice: in the general inventory of all the kin terms a n d in the separate listing for the graphically non-represented kin terms.  T h e s e terms m u s t b e of necessity descriptive a n ds o m e t i m e s periphrastic S I B L I N G Let us begin with the negative one. Sibling is a unique 28 kin-term found in English  that is lacking in Serbian. It d o e s not  m e a n that the Serbian kinship terms are less elaborate a n d less n u m e r o u s . O n e glance at the tables or the inventory of terms will 28 T h e English w o r d "sibling" is a learned o n ea n d not generally k n o w n or used, G e r m a n die Geschwister is m o t e c o m m o n l y used, but has a serious limitation being a pluralia tantum.  37  s h o w the opposite, The lack of the term for a sibling needs, u n d e r these circumstances, s o m e explanation. Considering the individual terms, it was repeatedly implied or stressed that the Serbian kin29 terms approach the ideal denotative system.  The terminology is  interested m o r e in the concrete relative, than in the abstract relations which m a y or m a y not be encountered in life. S u c h an a r g u m e n t is not universally applied to the Serbian kin-terms. Spouses, parents, children all h a v e terms. Out of the four passible sets af primary 30 relatives  only the term for siblings is missing, while the terms  for the other three exist. The a r g u m e n t for precision in kin terminology is not valid unless applied to all four sets of relatives. Notwithstanding the above, siblings h a v e a significant difference from the other sets. T h e y are the only consanguineal relations in the s a m e generation. The other three sets do not m e e t one af the two conditions that siblings do. S P O U S E S Serbian kin terminology has a sex distinction for the spouses. The "he spouse" is S U P R U G ,  while "she spouse" is a •  S U P R U G A . The alternate form for suprug - S U P R U Z N I K - is not in V  c o m m o n use. The female equivalent of S U P R U Z l M I C A is k n o w n , but almost completely out of use. The c o m m o n term for the h u s b a n d and wife pair is S U P R U Z I M I C I .  29 The ideal denotative system d o e s not exist. 30 Siblings, spouses, parents, children.  3 8 C H I L D R E N T h e term for a child is D E T E . It d o e s not specify sex, as o p p o s e d to suprug or supruga w h e r e g e n d e r (and sex) is marked.  T h en o u n dete is neuter in gender. It is concomitant with the Serbian general rule that the animated n o u n s are of the neuter g e n d e r if they designate the y o u n g person or creature, T h e plural of dete is D E D A . P D S D P A C A son consecutively born, without an intervening daughter is a P D S O P A C . Consequently, p o s o p a c could not b e the first born son. T h en u m b e r of the sons t e r m e d p o s o p a c is not limited. T h e n o u n is m o r e often used in the plural describing t w o or m o r e sons P O S O P C I . M E Z I M A C T h e last child born is M E Z I M A C o rM E Z I M C E if a son, a n d M E Z I M I C A if a daughter. I Z T R I S C E is the alternative term, but it d o e s not specify the sex. While m e z i m a c (mezimce,mezirnica; is a sign of a great affection, iztrisce is s o m e w h a t dubious in origin a n d in connotation. Undoubtedly out of tbe t w o terms iztrisce is less frequently used, a n d definitelly less affectionate than the former. Having a specific term for the last born child m a y imply the system of ultimogeniture. In discussing the son, it w a s said that the Serbian system,is a system of primogeniture. Kinship terminology s e e m s to contradict the social rule. H o w e v e r , the youngest child beside the term itself has n o other privileges.  39 P A R E N T S T h e term for parent is R O D I T E L J . It h a p p e n s that grammatically the n o u n roditelj is af masculine gender, The kin term, h o w e v e r , d o e s not specify the sex of the parent,- It could b e either m o t h e r or father. T h e plural is R D D I T E L J I „ P R A R O D I T E L j"I In the preceding paragraph the term for parents is given as roditelji, Elsewhere the system is elaborated according to which, b ym e a n s of the preposition pra-, the terms for the preceding g e n e rations are devised. It has b e e n said that the term for grandfather is deda, a n d the term for great-grandfather is pradeda. T h e prefix pra- indicates o n e generation further r e m o v e d from ego. The term P R A R O D I T E L J I d o e s not conform to the rule that w a s given for the e g o ' s parents, w h e r e specific sex is indicated. T h e term praroditelji then, has the m e a n i n g of the ancestors without limiting itself to a n y particular generation. T h e alternative is S T A R I - the old ones. This stari is the plural, a n d should be distinguished from the singular stari, the alternate form for father, P O R O D I C A P O R Q D I C A is a term in Serbian that designates a nuclear family a n d nothing else. It would be not appropriate to label it as a denotative term, because it is not a single relative, but rather ag r o u p of people with special interrelations. T h e term porodica d o e s not further specify w h e t h e r it is a complete or incomplete nuclear family. In the collective conscious of the nation, porodica implies the complete nuclear family, but the incomplete nuclear family w o u l d be again designated as a porodica, although s o m e w h a t reluctantly.  40 F A M I L I J A This term, because of the similarity to the English term (family"*) requires a special emphasis. F A M I L I J A is a term that 3  m e a n s relatives in the broadest sense. Familija is a collective n o u n b y which all the consanguineal a n d affinal relatives are enveloped. It excludes the ceremonial kin. T h e Serbian peasants s o m e t i m e s tend to replace the initial F with V. Thus, the peasant colloquial form is U A M I L I J A . R O D J A K R O D J A K is a relative in the broadest sense without a n y c o m m i t m e n t as to the collaterality. All the range from primary to 3 2 quinary relatives could be included in this term.  The only criterion  that the term recognizes is that of sex: rodjak (or R O D J A )  is a  m a l e relative, while R D D J A K A is a female. R O D J A C I is the plural and identical in m e a n i n g with familija. R O D B I N A is a collective noun, a n d the question of n u m b e r (whether singular or plural) is inappropriate. It implies the multiplicity, although grammatically it is singular. S u T J J T A is derivative from the m o r p h o n e m e svoj which m e a n s o n e ' s own. A claim that all kin-terms are m o r p h o n e m e s with exclusive kin-semantics is still valid, notwithstanding the derivative  31 Historically the English term "family" has b e e n subjected to semantic change. Originally it h a d a similar m e a n i n g to the Serbian familija. It s h o w s a clear tendency to a narrowing d o w n of the meaning. At the present time it m e a n s a nuclear family. In colloquial English, h o w e v e r it has u n d e r g o n e further narrowing a n dm e a n s only s o m e o n e ' s children. W h e t h e r the term will u n d e r g o a n y further narrowing, in m e a n i n g is impossible to predict. 32 There is a tendency to apply this term to m o r e distant relatives, a n d also to exclude completely the primary relatives from this term.  4 1 svojta. Svojta is a collective n o u n indicating a plurality a n d not the individual. Therefore, it is not required that the m o r p h o n e m e has the exclusive of primary kin designation, v S T R I C E V I N A T h e term S T R I C E V I N A indicates all the relatives of ego w h o are connected to h i m through stric. Everyone in the stric's affinal family is l u m p e d together in the term stricevina. SlRICEVICI in the narrow sense designates only the children of stric, while in the  broader sense it is idantical in m e a n i n g to stricevina. There is still a further subtle differentiation in m e a n i n g b e t w e e n stricevina a n d stricevici. Stricevina a s s u m e s a quality of a quasi-abstract n o u n with the very broad m e a n i n g of everything that is in o n ew a y or another connected with the stric. Beside the relatives of stric it also implies the place of residence and a n y qualitative or quantitative trait of anything that is centered around the stric. Stricevici, o n the other hand, has the qualities of a concrete n o u n with the strict limitation of m e a n i n g solely to the kin, U J E V I N A U J E V I N A a n d UJEVICI are the equivalent for ujak of w h a t is written in the preceding paragraph regarding stricevina a n d stricevici. T E T H I C I T h e corresponding form for tetka, similar to stricevina or  ujevina d o e s not exist. T h e term T E T H I C I m e a n s , then, all the person  k2  w h o are connected through kin-ties to the tetka.  3 3  PRIJATELJI T h e term for prija, prijatelj a n d their relatives is PRIJATELJI. T h ew o r d is a h o m o n y m of the nominative plural of prijatelj. Prijatelji, then, beside designating the relatives, also has a m e a n i n g o f } friends. Nevertheless, if e m p l o y e d as a kin-term, 3k  it resists a n y further productivity b y the w a y of derivatives. G E N E R A C I J A G E N E R A C I J A is not the precise equivalent of the English "generation", It indicates the distance of relatives from e g o not only vertically in the descending or ascending generations, but also it states the horizontal distance: the n u m b e r of the lineal and collateral relatives standing b e t w e e n the ego and the particular relative. H O L E N O , or the palatilized form K O L J E N O is the 5 3  indigenous w o r d for generation. P D KRVI; P O M L E K U Consanguineal a n d affinal relatives'^ are called in Serbian 5  "20  -try  the relatives P OK R V I  a n d relatives P OM L E K U  respectively.  33 N o t e that tetka is FaSi and MoSi, while stric a n d ujak are FaBr a n dM o B r respectively,  3k T h e productivity is unlimited: prijateljstvo, prijateljski, neprijatelj, neprijateljstvo, neprijateljski, prijateljica etc, 35 It is also a h o m o n y m for a "knee". 3 B Often called the family of procreation and family of orientation respectively. 37 B y blood. 38 B y milk.  43  The comparison with the kinship system in both China and India (Jossellin de Jong 1 9 5 2 : 2 6 ) forces itself. In China and India there is the distinction of " b o n e and flesh", as applying to paternal and maternal side respectively. Designating the lineal, biological descendance, the kinship terminology seeks s o m e concrete 39 representation. It is found either in the parts of the h u m a n b o d y or in its significant secret>aion, such as milk. The Serbian system of descendence is predominantly patrilineal. It is reflected in the idioms of po krvi and po mleku. Blood is considered.the m a i n ingredient of the h u m a n b o d y which is essential for all the physiological occurrences, including procreation itself. Milk, on the other hand, is considered definitely inferior to blood in the order 40 of general importance. There is a proverb H R \ / NIJE V O D A which, 41 in a less often used, modified form is K R V NIJE M L E H O  clearly  indicating the superiority of blood over milk, socio-culturally speaking.  39 N e v e r in the parts that take the active part in procreation. 40 Blood is not water, 41 Blood is not milk.  44 C E R E M O N I A L K I N S H I P A n overall tendency of the Serbian kinship system is the desire for the greatest possible expansion of the n u m b e r of kin. T h e n u m b e r of kin that a n y o n e person can h a v e is limited. In order to 42 counteract that limitation the Serbian kinship system  increases  their n u m b e r to a significant degree. There are several categories of ceremonial kin. Neither of t h e m could b e simultaneously either consanguineal or affinal in addition to a ceremonial kin. This m e a n s that the Serbs seek their potential ceremonial kin outside of their k n o w n kin. E a c h category will b ee x a m i n e d separately. K U M O f all the ceremonial kin the K U M  is regarded with the  highest e s t e e m , . It is the term that designates both the best m a n a n d the godfather. T h e identicalness of the term s h o w s the system b y which  the ceremonial kinship operates. N a m e l y , it is o n ea n d the s a m e person In the view of the Serbs, a person w h ow a s of utmost importance at the w e d d i n g is a logical choice for the christening of the baby, the result of such a union. At the w e d d i n g the k u m is the m o s t important ceremonial kin; nevertheless he shares his position of h o n o u r with V  t w o other ceremonial kin: the stari svat a n d rucni dever. O n the christening day, o n the other hand, h e is the sole ceremonial kin a n du p o n h i m is b e s t o w e d undivided honour. Outside of the church c e r e m o n y , the k u m has no specific duties or specific rites to perform. T h e selection of the k u m is important. It is concomitant with the 42 Along with the n u m b e r of other kin systems.  45  importance that k u m will enjoy. A non-kin y o u n g adult to middle-aged 43 man,  w h o is a very g o o d friend of the individual or, m o r e often,  of the w h o l e family, is desirable for a kum. A k u m is often sought in a person w h o is of a slightly higher social status,  w h o enjoys  a certain degree of prestige. The office of the k u m is hereditary. Inheritance g o e s b y the principle of the primogeniture. The eldest son inherits the right to continue being a k u m for a particular family. The k u m is the ceremonial kin-bond that connects people through generations. S o m e of the people cannot recollect the person w h o w a s the original kum. Although they h a v e no written records, the people are able to trace at least three generations. T h o s e that do not k n o w w h e n the first k u m w a s selected, are thus assured that it h a p p e n e d at least four generations r e m o v e d from ego. The k u m is considered to be the spiritual father of the godchild, and it is also thought that he has s o m e mystic union, on the spiritual plane, with the  people w h o s e w e d d i n g he "witnesses". Bearing this in m i n d it follows logically that the family is eager to preserve the relationship with the k u m through as m a n y generations as possible. The k u m christens all the children regardless of their n u m b e r . U n d e r extraordinary 45 circumstances the k u mm a y cease to perform the duties at the w e d d i n g 43 Always a m a l e and never a female. 44 Financial? 45 It is reported that in the traditional M o n t e n e g r o society there w e r e instances w h e r e the k u m w a s entitled to ius primo noctis. Nothing similar is reported for the Serbs. D u e to this there is a joking term in Serbian: C R I M O G O R S H I K U M - the k u m from Montenegro.  46  and christening. T h e s e circumstances are limited in n u m b e r and are v 4 6 well defined. Regarding the marriage they are: if one of the k u m c e remains unmarried throughout life; if one of the k u m c e gets divorced or w i d o w e d while young, not due to natural causes, but by being  killed in whatever way; if a spouse of one of the k u m c e b e c o m e s insane. Regarding the children the conditions are: if a couple d o e s not produce children; if a w o m a n has a spontaneous abortion; if the first two children in the family are girls; if the children die very young; if a child is born with a mental or physical disorder or acquires one later in life. Not a single one of the reasons listed warrants by itself the ceasetion of the kum-relationship. A reason is considered strong e n o u g h if two or m o r e of the aformentioned misfortunes occur. E v e n then, the initiative for the break of the kum-kinship m u s t always c o m e from the k u m himself and never from a n y o n e else. Traditionally the k u m had the sole privilege of choosing an a m e for the child. During the christening c e r e m o n y , w h e n the  priest asks w h a t is the child's n a m e , the kum a n n o u n c e s his decision. The parents are informed of the child's n a m e at that time as is everyone else. Social c h a n g e has not affected the hight on which the institution of the k u m stands, but it has challenged his exclusive right to n a m e the children. The social c h a n g e developed in phases: first the kum informed the parents of the child's n a m e in advance;  46 For this and all the conditions that follow sex is not specified; it includes both. 47 Including the affected people.  kl  then in the next p h a s e he consulted t h e m ; finally the k u m asked the parents their wish regarding the child's n a m e , V  The k u m never n a m e d the k u m c e after himself. If he did, it  would be considered an instance of the u t m o s t i m m o d e s t y . S o m e loosely defined pattern in n a m i n g children w a s prescribed, but not strictly  observed. T h e children w e r e not n a m e d after their parents, but after their grandparents. E v e r y child has two sets of grandparents; thus every b a b y b o y has two grandfathers a n d every baby-girl two grandmothers. It is extremely rare for both grandfathers or both grand-  mothers to h a v e the s a m e first n a m e . The problem then arises, which o n e to chose. That problem is solved ingeniously. The first child is n a m e d after the paternal grandparent, the second child after the maternal grandparent. If the c u s t o m is strictly followed a n d a nuclear family has m o r e than four children, the problem poses itself again. This time the k u m exercises his prerogative freely: h e chooses the n a m e that he likes best, or the o n e that he would like for himself if he w e r e in a position to choose. The k u m is said to h a v e equivalents in English in bath the best m a n a n d the godfather. If o n e insists on being specific then the best m a n is called V E I M C A N I H U M - the k u m b y marriage. H U M A is the feminine form of k u m a n d it simply m e a n s k u m ' s wife. The k u m a is not the g o d m o t h e r , because at the christening c e r e m o n y her h u s b a n d has all the prerogatives of the office. If k u m is ego, then the christened child is his  K U M C E or H U M I C .K u m c e is the neuter n o u n  and applies both to b o y s a n d girls. K u m i c is masculine a n d applies only to boys. The institution of the ceremonial kinship of k u m is  48  called K U M S T V O . Besides designating the abstract n o u n of the institution, it also doubles with reference to all of the k u m ' s previous relatives. S T A R I S V A T The descriptive term in the broadest sense is any kin-term that consists of m o r e than one word. According to this extended rule, the S T A R I S V A T is a descriptive term, insofar as one is  obliged to say both parts, and a semantic c h a n g e occurs if either is  omitted. Isolated they h a v e following meaning: stari m e a n s old; svat is any guest at the wedding. Stari svat is THE  senior guest, the  one that b e c o m e s a ceremonial kin at the wedding. The alternate form is S T A R D J H O . After the kum, he is the m o s t important guest at the wedding. After the w e d d i n g he has no m o r e customary ceremonies to 48 perform,  but he remains tied with the ceremonial kin for life  8  R U C N I D E V E R According to the rule given a b o v e R U C I M I D E V E R is again a descriptive term. He is also a ceremonial kin, acquired during the marriage c e r e m o n y . Unlike the kum or starojko, the rucni dever has specific duties during the wedding; namely, heftanstantlyaccompanies 49 the bride.  v  The rucni dever takes the bride tD church for the  w e d d i n g c e r e m o n y , and later, during the w e d d i n g feast, he is the one 48 Unlike the kum, who christens the offsprings. 49 This is a "cultural clash" with the Anglo-Saxons, w h e r e a n y b o d y but a female c o m p a n i o n for the bride is unthinkable.  49  w h o accompanies and leads the bride wherever she goes. •  The des-  criptive term rucni dever should not be confused with the denotative  term dever, which is a HuBr, Occasionally the dever (HuBr) can perfor the duty of the rucni dever. Levirate is not implied. N A K O N J C E The N A K O N J C E is a two or three-years-old child, previously unrelated, w h o also b e c o m e s a ceremonial kin during the marriage. The c u s t o m is that the bride, u p o n returning from the church to the h o m e , lifts the nakonjce as high u p as she can and kisses him. The significance of the c u s t o m is of no concern to this thesis. W h a t is important is that the nakonjce b e c o m e s a ceremonial kin. The total n u m b e r of the ceremonial kin acquired during the w e d d i n g is four. Nakonjce is a composite derivative word: na - on; konj - a horse. The traditional m e a n s of transportation for the occasion of the  w e d d i n g was a horse. A bride lifted the nakonjce on the horse, usually v  h a n d e d to her b y the rucni dever. The m e a n s of transportation has changed, but the term nakonjce has not. This strengthens the theory that of the c h a n g e s in the kinship system, the terminology is the m o s t resistant. If it ever d o e s c h a n g e it is the last to do so. P O B R A T I M There is a device to acquire a ceremonial "brother". T w o 51 y o u n g adults can achieve a p e r m a n e n t b o n d by b e c o m m i n g P O B R A T I M I . 50 In contemporary slang rucni dever (or dever) is a m e m b e r of the o p e n or secret police force w h o arrests and accompanies a person to prison, 51 Plural form. j  50  There are various reasons for such a decision. It, is of course, u p to the individuals concerned to reach a decision to b e c a m e pobratimi. T h e "true" relation is the relation " b y blood" as w a s said above. For this reason the c e r e m o n y included s o m e ritual mixing of blood of the t w o persons. O n em a y a s s u m e that this c u s t o m existed in pagan, pre-christian time. After christianization the term b e c a m e descriptive in the form of B 0 G 0 M P O B R A T I M - the pobratim b y God. T h e c e r e m o n y 52 w a s . performed in the church building or s o m e w h e r e else,  but always  b y the priest himself. T h e abstract n o u n for the institution is P O B R A T I M S T V / 0 . P O S E S T R I M A For P O S E S T R I M A the s a m e is true as w a s said in the previous paragraph, with the difference that t w o female persons are involved. As a n illustration of the extraordinary desire of the Serbs  to e x p a n d their kin, o n e should e m p h a s i z e that the pobratim or posestrima are not limited to o n e ' s a w n sex, T w o persons of the apposite sex  can tie a p e r m a n e n t b o n d through pobratimstvo. T h e y m a y b e of a n y ag a n d the marital status is immaterial. Neither, or one of the two, or both m a y be married. If neither is married, then the pobratimstvo excludes t h e m as a possible marriage partners of o n e another,  P O S V O G A K T h e adopted child is P O S V O J A K o rP 0 S U 0 J C E for a boy, and P 0 S V / 0 J K A for a girl. T h e adaption of children b y non-kin occurred  52 Cemetery, h o m e .  51  very seldom, since the "holy duty" for the relatives w a s to take full care of the child in need. V E R E N I C I '  '  5 3  Fiance a n d fiancee together are V E R E N I C I .  Fiance is  V E R E N I H , and fiancee is V E R E N I C A .W h e n t w o people b e c o m e verenici a n d the date of the w e d d i n g is specified, they are immediately consi-  dered as being kin. If in the m e a n t i m e o n e of t h e m dies or loses his/he life, the relationship b e t w e e n the t w o families continues regardless of the fact that the t w ow e r e not actually married. O C U H T h e stepfathers  O C U H or P O O C I M . Neither of the t w o  is a compassionate term. T h e Serbs h a v e a great affection for the "real" kin a n d for the ceremonial kin. A notable exception are the . step-pasents. In the collective consciousness of the nation they are identified with villains. In the terminology it is also reflected. T h et w o terms for the stepfather (neither complimentary) should b e c o m p a r e d with the ten terms for a father. O n e of these latter is the standard term, a n d all of the remaining nine are affectionate variants, M A C E H A T h e step-mother has one m o r e term than the stepfather, but she has the least favourable place a m o n g the relatives. In the opinion  53 Serbian kinship terminology lacks the term for siblings. English lacks the term for "verenici", 5k T h e stepfather a n d stepmather are the only t w o not "real" kin that h a v e a device for the graphical representation.  52  of the nation she is consciously identified with the i m a g e of the stepmother in "Cinderella". The n u m b e r of the terms should not be misleading. N o n e is affectionate. P A S T O R A K The stepson is P A S T O R A K o rP A S T O R C E . The t e r m immediately arouses sentimental revulsion. In order to dull the edge, it can be unsuccessfully abbreviated into P A S T O R . The attempted abbreviation is inappropriate, because pastor m e a n s a priest. Therefore, this abbreviation is used only jokingly. All the terms are avoided to prevent the unpleasant connotation of the term. The stepdaughter is P A S T O R K A . P O L U B R A T 55  The half-brother and half-sister are P O L U B R A T a n d P O L U B E S T R A respectively. In this respect they are similar to English.  The Serbian verb for a m a n to m a r r y is O Z E N I T I SE, a  reflexive verb. The w o r d for a w o m a n is U D A T I SE, again reflexive There is a very strong tendency to refer to the relatives not by the appropriate term, but to put s o m e relatives one place closer to egD either vertically or horizontally. S u c h is the case for grandmother's sister w h o is very often referred to as aunt.  55 In English half-brothers h a v e one c o m m o n parent, step-brothers h a v e n o n e . ( G e r m a n : Halbbruder and Stiefbruder). In Serbian there is no such distinction. If both parents are not c o m m o n , the Serbian terminology loses interest in further differentiation,  53  O n the other hand, a n aont is frequently referred to as a sister, especially if she is a y o u n g e r person. This in itself is probably the clearest demonstration of the extraordinary affection a m o n g the relatives. T h e system is so well ingrown, that it d o e s not s h o w any considerable tendency to change. Increasing m o n e t a r y e c o n o m y a n d commercial dealing a m o n g relatives did not prove sufficient reason for this affection to u n d e r g o a change. In addition to previous, another occurrence is very s y m p t o matic. N a m e l y , s o m e very intimate friends refer tD their friends' spouses b y a kinship term which corresponds to the term for brother's wife (snaja) or sister's h u s b a n d (zet). This occurrence fits into the w h o l e social pattern. It is another trait which gains instead of losing ground, as m a y b e expected. With the nuclearization of the family., the actual correlation in terms of behaviour did not u n d e r g o a n yc h a n g e to a significant degree, As w eh a v e s h o w n in the last example, e v e n the reverse occurred. Friends that are neither consanguineal nor affinal relatives are referred to b y a kinship term a n d treated accordingly.  54  NON-KIN  As a d e n o u e m e n t for the over-emphasizing of the kinship terms a n d kinship relations there are s o m e sayings that in a comical w a y say that the persons are not related. M o j a b a b a i njegova b a b a dve rodjene babe, M yg r a n d m o t h e r a n d his g r a n d m o t h e r are t w o R O D J E N E  grandmothers.  It w a s stated that the descriptive term rodjeni serves to distinguish the lineal from the collateral relative. In this punsentence rodjeni could not possibly be an appropriate term, a n d that is w h a t lends comicality a n d a point to the saying.  K u m i n e mi k u m e , pa njezine druge, iz prvoga sela, rodjeni rodjenastij deverovski pastorak. R O D J E N I , . m o s t R O D J E N I D E V E R ' s stepson from the friend of m y K U M A ' s K U M A in the next village. In this involved a n d comical m a n n e r it is stated that there is no relationship whatsoever.  55 Z A O R U G A T h e examination of the zadruga is interesting not only from  the point of view of kinship, but also from the economic, sociological, religious, political a n d cultural paint of view. T h ec h a n g e that occurred within the zadruga is significant. As the zadruga in its complexity deserves the separate^ article, here will be mentioned only briefly its m o s t prominent characteristics as far as kinship a n d c h a n g e within it are concerned. T h e zadruga is o n e of the t w o traditional Serbian institutions which practically remained untouched b y the Turks.Zadruga is a composite family, being a patrilocal extended family. T h e strictly 57 observed rule of marital residence w a s patrilocal.  It is well  illustrated in the derogatory term P R I Z E T K O for those w h o break the rule a n d take u p residence with or near the bride's parents. T h e extended family m a y e n d u r e indefinitely, which feature is a direct contribution to the establishment of traditions a n d institutions. A naclear family, a n the other hand, is transistary and, although is not limited in time, it is m o r e apt to be extinct earlier than the extended or joint family. T h e proof of this is the history of dynasties. T h e zadruga included s o m e t i m e s individuals of four or e v e n five generations. T h em a l e offsprings with their spouses and children, 56 T h e other o n e being O P S T I N A - a particular Serbian c o m m u n i t y that is outside of our interest. 57 T h e alternate form favoured b ys o m e British authors is virilocal, U e shall retain the term patrilocal throughout the paper, since it is m o r e appropriatly descriptive of the Serbian society. Patrilocal is derivative from pater - father, while virilocal is derived from vir - husband. A m o n g the Serbs father definitely has priority aver the husband.  56  through as m a n y generations as the life time permitted, m a d e u p the s a m e household. In extreme cases it consisted of as m a n y as one h u n d r e d individuals, but the average n u m b e r very s e l d o m exceeded fifty, a n d quite frequently w a s considerably less. T h e origin of  the zadruga m a y b e traced b a c k to the eighth century. Rapid desintegration b e g a n toward the end of the nineteenth century. The zadruga as a n institution is over 1000 years old. The desintegration started slowly in the nineteenth century, but picked u p the speed of an avalanche, especially after World W a r II. The breaking u p of the zadruga brought about a w h o l e series of problemsjand an imperative necessity for readjustment in the kinship system. The cause w a s pri-  marily economic, but the consequencies w e r e felt in all the manifestations of life. C h a n g e has occurred regardless of its undesirability. The replacement of a highly affectionate relationship b y one of comparative coolness created a very strong sentimental reaction. It prevented a n y drastic c h a n g e in spite of c h a n g e d circumstances. M o r e  a n dm o r e e m p h a s i s is laid u p o n the nuclear family. This social c h a n g e w a s felt everywhere, but less in kinship relations than in other aspects of life. v  58  T h eh e a d of the zadruga - S T A R E S I I M A  is usually the eldest  m a l e in the zadruga. His prestige is unquestioned, but he is b y n o m e a n s an autocrat or a pantocrator. H e is entitled to reach decisions a n d to give orders to all the m e m b e r s of the zadruga. C u s t o m a r y IBW 58 In recent times m o r e often - D O M AC I I M , His classical counterpart is the R o m a n Pater Familias.  57  is the highest law for all the m e m b e r s , and it is also the highest authority for the staresina, Serbian society w a s an absolutely patriarchal society a n d the staresina w a s its patriarch. In the premonetary e c o n o m y the acquisition of wealth w a s a result of the efforts of all, in a direct or indirect m a n n e r , while the distribution of that wealth w a s the sole responsibility of the staresina. Agriculture w a s its primary activity, b a s e d chiefly u p o n m a l e labour. The wealth w a s  divided according to need, regardless of m e m b e r ' s actual contribution. The e c o n o m i c p o w e r Df the staresina is not as important as his moral p o w e r . In extraordinary circumstances the staresina is not the oldest male. If the staresina b e c o m e s too old a n d feels that he cannot handle the affairs of the zadruga to the u t m o s t benefit of all its m e m b e r s , he usually suggests that another replace him. In such a case another staresina is "elected". This "election", which is usually carried out b y the married males, is s o m e t i m e s performed e v e n without the content of the former staresina. S u c h a course, less frequent than t h R previous one, is taken only if there is a s u d d e n and profound c h a n g e for the w o r s e in the staresina's mental ability. Although  the w h o l e society is m a l e oriented, s a m e instances are recorded w h e r aw o m a n is staresina. In all those cases she w a s aw i d o w of a former staresina. Primogeniture w a s the recognized and approved w a y of favouring the first-born son. Subsequently, the y o u n g e r brothers had preference in the order of their birth. Ultimogeniture, although paradoxical, w a s simultaneously in operation, but to a lesser extent and in a s o m e w h a t different aspect. The last-born son w a s a family's  58  (particularly the mother's) pet. The first-born daughter had n o preference over her sisters except in the case of marriage. T h e parents attempted to m a r r y their daughters in the order of their birth. If it h a p p e n e d that the y o u n g e r daughter married first, she could not h a v e aw e d d i n g feast until,her older sister (or sisters) w e r e married, regardless of the relative wealth of her family. D o w r y is desirable, but not essential. T h e opposite to a d o w r y w o u l d  b e bridewealth. In the patriarchal society which favours m a l e s u p r e m a c y , d o w r y is considered the only right thing a n d its implication is not questioned either b y the giver or receiver. In the large extended family living in close proximity, tension a n d friction are b o u n d to occur as a normal c o n s e q u e n c e of a clash of personalities. It is surprising h o w in the zadruga so m a n y of these c]ashes w e r e either avoided or patched up. The ownership in the zadruga is c o m m o n for those people w h o are m e m b e r s of the zadruga at a n y given time. This m e a n s that a person w h o leaves the zadruga, for whatever reason, is not entitled to a n y share of the zadruga's wealth. O n the other hand, a person w h o joins the zadruga immediately b e c o m e s ac o o w n e r . The intricate system of ownership within the zadruga w a s not understood or w a s utterly m i s c o m p r e h e n d e d b y the l a w m a k e r s w h o patterned their law o n a foreign model. The law recognized the private ownership within the zadruga. Nepotism could be expected in a society w h e r e kinship ties  are so pronounced. H o w e v e r , in the traditional society there w e r e only af e w sinecure or lucrative a n d desirable positions; nepotism did not  59  h a v e its normal outlet. At the time w h e n nepotism could h a v e had m o influence on the society in general, social c h a n g e s of great magnitude w e r e a c c o m p a n y i n g the monetarization of the e c o n o m y : the zadruga started definitely to decline a n d occurrences of nepotism w e r e indeed sporadical. After the S e c o n d World W a r the g o v e r n m e n t w a s very eagerly promoting an institution which w a sn a m e d zadruga, exactly the s a m e as the traditional one. H o w e v e r , the difference b e t w e e n the t w o w a s e n o r m o u s . T h e contemporary zadruga is a Yugoslav version of the Soviet 59 kolhoz  a n de v e n the n a m e implies that it is primarily an e c o n o m i c  institution with the m e m b e r s h i p c o m p o s e d in an entirely different w a y from that in the traditional type. All the m e m b e r s in the traditional zadruga w e r e kin, while the criterion for recruiting in the n e w t y p e zadruga is entirely different a n d is not b a s e d on kinship ties at all. F r o m the point of view of the kinship system a n d kinship terminology, therefore, the first o n e is of interest to this paper, while the second one is of n o concern. T h e time is too short to s h o w  appreciable influence u p o n the behaviour pattern, let alone the terminology itself.  59 Collective husbandry - o x i e K T H B H o e E  XOSHKCTBO,  60 I N C E S T E x o g a m y is carried t o an extreme. N oo n e from the enclosed tables can m a r r y a n y o n e else in the tables. The Serbian Orthodox Church (still very powerful) prohibits intermarriage if there are not at least five intervening relatives b e t w e e n the spouses. This m e a n s that the spouses m u s t be a t least six generations (koleno) apart. It is codified by the state law. In practice there is n o observed case which w o u l d tend to break this rule. If a person belongs to the s a m e clan^ the marriage is not permited, e v e n if prospective spouses or a n y b o d y else is unable to trace a n y actual relation b e t w e e n the two. "MaRimal bilateral extension"^ is e v e n further increased to include all the ceremonial kin also. Cases of incest are not k n o w n a m o n g the court records. Furthermore, the inhabitants of the s a m e village gradually increase the n u m b e r of people w h o m they consider as kin, e v e n if they are not actual kin. This leaHs to a diminishing n u m b e r of marriages within the village, a n d so increases the n u m b e r of marriages with spouses f r o m neighbouring or e v e n distant villages. T h e rapid urbanization solved the problem of the availability of a passible m a t e , but the very rigorous " e x o g a m y " is as m u c h in observ a n c e in the city as it is in the country. C h a n g e , therefore, is m o r e in the nature of accessibility and selection o f a prospective marriage partner than in the categories of permitted a n d not permitted future spouses.  60 T h e easiest w a y to d e d u c e w h o belongs to the clan is b y the presence of the s a m e last n a m e . A coincidence s o m e t i m e s h a p p e n s that t w o peopl belong to t w o different clans, but both clans h a v e the s a m e last n a m e . In such a case the people go to great pains in order to prove that they are N O T related.  61  The p o e m " N a h o d S i m e u n " (Foundling S i m e u n ) has striking similarities with the ancient G r e e k tragedy "Oedipus Rex" by Sophocles. The Oedipus c o m p l e x in the psychoanalitical teachings of Freud derives mainly from that tragedy. If it is true that the author of N a h o d S i m e u n was familiar with the Oedipus myth, then the p o e m could not be considered as being the product of a Serbian national bard. There is no evidence to support the existence of the Oedipus complex, as applied to the Serbs. The  "Electra complex" and "3ocasta  complex" h a v e no representation in the Serbian papular ballads. O n d a veli kucka lijepa devojka P O B R A T I M E Starina N o v a c e Ti nisi sroa junackoga Jer ne ljubis ovakve devojke * n e  K u d a prodje gizdava devojka Ta gora zelena posanula O d straha od B o g a velikoga O d sramote od lepe devojke Jer P O B R A T I Starina N o v a k a Pak htease I M o v a k a ljubiti. A kud prodje Starina N o v a c e Ona s u h a gora prolistala I suha trava pomladila Od pravde od Starina N o v a k a Jer ne ljubi b o g o m P O S E S T R I M E , T h e n said the w e n c h , the pretty maid: "Pobratime, Starina N o v a k , You h a v e no heroic heart, For you do not m a k e love to such a girl!" W h e r e v e r the pretty m a i d passed, The green forest withered, B e c a u s e of fear of the great God, And the disgrace of the pretty maid; For she m a d e Starina N o v a k her P O B R A T I M ,  61 Marriage forbidden with any relative, h o w e v e r remote, with w h o m an actual aenealogical connection can be traced in anv line. ( M u r d o c k 1 9 4 9 : 3 0 3 )  62 A n d then she w a n t e d to m a k e love with him. A n dw h e r e Starina N o v a k passed, T h e withered forest leafed, A n d the withered grass greened, B e c a u s e of the righteousness of Starina N o v a k ; For he did not m a k e love with his P O S E S T R I M A . It is of interest to note that the girl is playing an active role (Eva) a n d that the ceremonial kin are strictly confined to the incest rules as are the consanguineal or affinal ones. T h e saying: v 62 N e zna stg je slas' K o ne p o z n a svas.  O n ed o e s not k n o w the sweetness, Unless he k n o w s the S V A S .  is not c o m m o n l y heard, a n d cannot be regarded as justification for the conclusion that incest w a sc o m m o n l y practised or e v e n desired. T h e relative involved is affinal, not a consanguineal one. This fact plays a major role in the degree to which the incestuous reference could be tolerated. Sororal polygyny is not implied.  62 T h e apostrophized form for slast in order to r h y m e with svas.  63 K I N S H I P S Y S T E M AS R E F L E C T E D IN T H E F O L K L I T E R A T U R E The wealth of the Serbian oral literature has b e e n k n o w n 63 well in the W e s t for m o r e than a century*  This literature has grea  variations in form, t h e m e s and quality, A fair percentage is concerned with kinsmen. Out of necessity this paper has to be selective and to i m p o s e h e a v y limitations on the material chosen, The material is so rich that it would piEobably warrant a thesis for itself. The intention of this section is merely to give several representative pieces. The Serbian oral literature e m p l o y s the figure of allusion quite frequently. Therefore, a further limitation is imposed: there are  quoted only those e x a m p l e s w h e r e the kinPterm is specifically mentione It is roughly estimated that the allusive e x a m p l e s are m o r e n u m e r o u s than the direct ones. All e x a m p l e s will be given in their original and in English translation. The kin terms will not be translated. If it is generally true that brevity is the soul o f wit, then the Serbian oral literature has a full right t o claim bath - brevity and wit. S o m e t i m e s - as is often the case with proverbs - the w h o l e "literary w o r k " consists only o f two words. In those w o r d s is synthetized thenatian's wit, its philosophy and its ability ta put it in this highly c o m p r e s s e d m a n n e r . Everything unnecessary is omitted and only the bare idea remains. That brevity is w h a t gives p o w e r t o the proverb and w h a t m a k e s the proverb r e m a i b n alive and youthful for centuries.  W h e t h e r in proverbs, or any other form of literature (prose or poetry), the extraordinary e c o n o m y in the language is observed. Not a single superfluous w o r d is present, nor could a single one be omitted without  63 Gothe, Brothers G r i m m , LaMartine, Walter Scott, Charles Dickens Gogol etc.  64  the m e a n i n g suffering rreatly. Every w o r d speaks and everyone is placed by the a n o n y m o u s "writer" in the proper place. B e c a u s e of the extraordinary brevity a n d the kinship terminology it is Dnly appropriate to give the t w o parallel texts. The translation into English m u s t be very free, particularly w h e r e uerse is involved. This paper will not be involved in the evaluation from the literary point of view. The only condition for the quotation is the specific mention of the kin-terms. H a d se S I N O V A C zenjase, S T R I C A n e pitase, a kad se razenjase i S T R I N U pripitivase. W h e nS I N O V A C w a s getting married he did not ask the S T R I C , but w h e n he w a s about to divorce, h e asked e v e n his S T R I N A . This proverb s h o w s several things: the high e s t e e m to which the stric should b e upheld; the s o m e w h a t inferior status of strina, concomitant with the status of her sex in the traditional Serbian society; the horror with which divorce is considered; the probable punishment on the sinovac for not consulting his stric in such a . vital decision; finally it gives in a nutshell the trio-terms (stric, strina, sinovac) a n d their relationship.  U svate se ide na veselje, T o the w e d d i n g party one g o e s for merriment N aK U M S T V O se ide po zakonu. To the K U M S T V O one g o e s b y "law". In both instances the k u m is involved. The w e d d i n g c o m e s chronologically before the christening a n d therefore the merriment aspect of it is emphasized. O n c e the k u m has blessed the marriage, it would be unthinkable for h i m or a n y o n e else not to christen all the offsprings. That idea is given the strongest w o r d that the  language can chose. The c u s t o m is so strong that it appears as a "law".  65  " G d e is dpnas, P O S E S T R I M Q vilo?" " W h e r e are you today, m y P O S E S T R I M A fairy?" In folk literature it is possible not only for two persons  to b e c o m e pobratim a n d posestrima, but it is also passible far a morta m a n to b e c o m e pobratim of a fairy, This s h o w s h o w strong the desire is for the expansion of Dne's Z e m a n dos'o, valja vojevati m m  a  ceremonial kin. The time has c o m e to fight, 9 •  S v a k o svoje da pokaje S T A R E  •  A n d to a v e n g e our  S T A R E .  The Serbs as a nation are not considered as being vengeful. 6 4 In Serbia there has never b e e n the c u s t o m of vendetta.  The national  bard is inviting the people to a v e n g e their ancestors and feels so strongly affectionate toward t h e m that he thinks that the fight is justified. O a se mojoj S U E K R V I ne svidjam, M y S V E K R V A d o e s not like m e , Hvala B o g u cesto nju ne vidjam. T h a n k G o d I don't see her often. The only exception to the general feeling of affection a m o n g the relatives is the peculiar behaviour affecting svekrva or tasta Dn o n e hand, a n d her zet or snaja o n the other. That behaviour is, m o r e often than not, expressed in the comical m a n n e r . There is so obvious tendency to replace hostility with a joking relationship. It also indicates a definite trend toward avoidance. C E R K U kara, S N A J I prigovara. She is scolding her C E R H A , so that the S I M A J A m a y hear. Hostility, avoidance a n d intolerance are clearly indicated. In spite of the intention to scald her snaja, the observance of  64 In M o n t e n e g r o vendetta w a s fairly widespread. In Serbia there is no record of it.  66  avoidance is overpowering the svekrva's wish, a n d she is forced to s p e a k indirectly. It also implies such an intimate relationship b e t w e e n m o t h e r a n d her daughter that everything is allowed, e v e n something that normally d o e s not belong in their relationship. Ljubia s a m tri HUME v e n c a n e •• •  I ljubio devet ••• Ljubia  sedam  PBSiSTfilMAH  KUMAH  kratenih  •• • 3a  udarlm  MA3KU  na o s n a g o .  65 I kissed  t h r e e women a t whose w e d d i n g  • ••  I mad e l o v e w i t h n i n e PDSESTRIMA •• • I made l o v e w i t h s e v e n m o t h e r s o f my • • •  I s t r u c k my  rarity  in folk  "three  KUME  required  exaggeration  by m a r r i a g e ,  as i s found  nine  PDSESTRIME  l e t a l o n e making l o v e t o them.  t o make a g r e a t e r c o n t r a s t w i t h  respect  o r maltreatment  neither  with  in this  knew where  poem i s n o t a  t h a t anyone may have  and s e v e n  KUMA by  The e x a g g e r a t i o n was  t h e s i n o f b e a t i n g o n e ' s own  s t a t e s t h a t na s i n i s a s b i g a s t h e  dis-  o f the mother. The i n c e s t u o u s r e l a t i o n s  are  the c o n s a n g u i n e a l  the ceremonial  the poet  v  KUMCE  l i t e r a t u r e . I t i s highly unlikely  m o t h e r . T h e anonymous p o e t  with  KUM  MAJKA.  Such a g r a s s  christening",  I was  relatives. t o draw  nor with Even  the a f f i n a l r e l a t i v e s , b u t  i n an e x t r e m e c a s e  o f exaggeration,  a line.  65 T o " k i s s " in the S e r b i a n f o l k l i t e r a t u r e is t h e e u p h e m i s m for t h e s e x u a l intercourse, similar to t h e F rench b a i s e r .  67 Ti irnades i O C A iM A J K U ,Y o uh a v e D T A C ind M A J K A , IMi jednoga u astalu n e m a , Neither of t h e m is seated at the table, D a ti pije prvu casu vina. T o drink the first glass of wine. In the longer p o e m the three "inhumanities" are listed. T h e final and m o s t i n h u m a n o n e is the lack of giving d u e respect to the parents. F r o m t h e j p o e m " U r o s iM m javcevici" (Uros a n d the Brothers Mrnjavcevic) w e give a little longer quote, because of its excellent treatment of the Serbian papular ethos, Kol'ko M a r k o tezio na pravdu, Tol'ko moli Jevrosima M A J K A : " M a r k o sine jedini u M a J K E ! N e bila ti m o j a rana kleta, N e m o jS I N E govoriti krivo Ni po B A B U ni po S T R I C E V I M A , \lec po pravdi B o g a istinoga; N e m o j , § I N § , izgubiti duse; Bolje ti je izgubiti glavu, N e g a svoju agresiti dusu". As m u c h as M a r k o tended toward justice As m u c h Jevrosima M A J K A implored: " M a r k o , m y onlyS0NI Let not m y food be accursed to you, D o not s p e a k unjustly, „ Either to your B A B O ' s or to your S T R I C E V / I advantage But according to the justice of the true God; D o not lose your soul, SIN, It is better to lose your life, T h a n to bring sin u p o n your soul", 6  In the dispute that arose a m o n g M a r k o ' s O T A C , his S T R I C E U I a n d Uros (unrelated to Marko) for the succession to the vacant throne, M a r k o ' s M A J K A is giving the' preceding advice to her son. In world literature it is difficult to find the peer to the scope, grandeur  66 T h e milk with which he w a s nursed.  6 B  and dimension of the ethos that is governing M a r k o ' s M A J K A . The key line for the interest of this study is the line "Ni po B A B U ni po  S T R I C E V I M A " .  M a r k o w a s invited to judge a n d to decide w h o of the pretendants is the one that should succed to the throne. In the instance w h e r e the absolute right of o n e person is not clear, the son is expected to v  favour his father first, a n d then his STRICEVI. M a r k o ' s  m o t h e r  d o e s not w a n t to influence his decision, but advises him not to b e biased toward hie relatives. The second part of the advice sitrenghtens the sincerity of the first part. The w h o l e instruction is of superh u m a n proportions paralleled probably only in the m a x i m a l requirements of religious doctrine. The G r e e k classical saying translated into 67 Latin: " A m i c u s Plato, sett m a g i s arnica V e r i t a s "  approaches the  ideal of the Serbian folk ballad. T h e significant difference is that Plato is a friend, while in the Serbian ballad the. primary relative is involved. T h e desire for h o n o u r a n d truth of the highest calibre is comparable with the Spartan mother, w h o would rather see her son dead, than dishonourable.  THi C U R S E S The richness of the Serbian folk literature is a well  recognized fact. In this paper an attempt is m a d e to s h o w a comparable wealth in the kinship terminology. There is also a third element in  67 Plato is m y friend, but the truth is an e v e n greater friend.  69  the Serbian idiom that requires serious consideration. That is the  matter of curses in the Serbian language. As f a m o u s as Serbs are for their oral literature, they are equally infamous for their curses. Curses, h o w e v e r , that are universally k n o w n throughout a nation are as m u c h a part of that nation's psychology as are m a n y other traits. B e c a u s e of the reasons so far mentioned, the author feels that the only fair representation is to give m o r e than one aspect of life of the said people, h o w e v e r uncomplimentary it m a y be. A d o c u m e n t e d paper on this problem alone w o u l d b e desirable. For the purpose of this paper, curses are of interest only insofar as they affect kinship. Generally speaking, curses are a n instance of swinging the p e n d u l u m  of the accepted n o r m s in a society. Therefore, in the curses, occurenc that are indifferent or of O D value for the society, are not present. •nly the tabu items are o n the list, a n d precisely that is w h a t their m a i n intention a n d their m a i n effect is. O n e should r e m r a e m b e r that the curses in English are usually centered around religion. English 6 8 people, being quite religious,  developed a series of tabus that  concern religion. Precisely because of that, curses center around it. Otherwise they w o u l d defeat their o w n purpose. Something similar is found a m o n g the Serbs insofar as tabu is concerned. Throughout this paper evidence is given of the extraordinary affection a m o n g the relatives. A m o n g all the relatives the m o t h e r is held in the highest  esteem, a n d she enjoys the highest status in the view of a n y individua This is socially recognized. A n individual is willing to g o to a n y 68 Genuine or pretended, the author will not attempt to judge. T h e fact, howewEr, remains that the evidence of religion is pronouncedly felt in the everyday life.  70  extent in order to provide well-being for his mother. According to our assumption it is no surprise that m o t h e r is m o s t frequently mentioned in curses. . In order to achieve reliability, all the curses should be quoted in full. The great majority of t h e m are unprintable. That is w h a t creates a m o s t serious problem in their treatment. The author of this paper will not quote t h e m , but is satisfied merely to state that their variation is almost unlimited. Their centripetality toward the closest kin, notably the mother, is another demonstration of the concern and preoccupation with o n e ' s kin, h o w e v e r paradoxical and negative side that m a y be.  F O R E I G N I N F L U E N C E O N THE S E R B I A N K I N S H I P T E R M I N O L O G Y A N D K I N S H I P S Y S The territory of Serbia borders with countries that h a v e a distinct language of their own. The intermingling of Serbs with the neighbouring peoples was considerable in the course of centuries. The mutual influence, therefore, could be expected in various manifestations of life and culture including the kinship system and the linguistic structure, including the kinship terminology. Serbia has c o m m o n borders with Hungary, R u m a n i a and Bulgaria. Serbia has no  c o m m o n border with any G e r m a n s p e a k i n g country, but the communication and contact b e t w e e n the two nations was extensive. Of the neighbouring nations only in Bulgaria is a Slavonic (Bulgarian) language spoken.  The R u m a n i a n language belongs to the R o m a n c e family of languages, whi  71  the Hungarian belongs to the Ugro-Finnic group. T h eG e r m a n language is a m e m b e r of the G e r m a n i c family of languages which includes also English. Turkey - similary tD G e r m a n y -d o e s not border on Serbia. Serbian life, h o w e v e r , w a su n d e r prolonged pressure from the Turks* In 1371, o n the river Maritsa, in the territory of present-day Bulgaria, the first battle b e t w e e n the Turks a n d Serbs w a s fought a n d a part of the Serbian territory w a s occupied b y the Turks. T h e Turkish a d v a n c e w a s slow, but steady. In 1459, with the fall of S m e d e r e v o , the capture of all Serbian territory w a s completed. In 1804 T h e First Uprising m a r k e d the gradual emancipation a n d liberation of the Serbs from the Turfcs. This liberation w a s not completed  until 1 9 1 2 1 3 , H e r e are the dates that s h o w the length of time during which the Serbs w e r e under the Turkish domination. If w e take the m i n i m u m time of 1 4 5 9 1 8 0 4 (rather than the m a x i m u m 1 3 7 1 1 9 1 3 )  it  69 still gives us a full 3 4 5 years.  In popular tradition the battle  of K o s o v o on 3 u n e 28, 1389 left a p e r m a n e n t impression. T h e round n u m b e r of 500 years " u n d e r the Turks" is m o s t often quoted b y non-historians. B ya n y standard, it is a long time, during which m a n y c h a n g e s in the indigenous w a y of life m a y b e expected. T h e s e  c h a n g e s ] no doubt did occur, For the purpose of this study, it is of great importance to state that the influence u p o n the Serbian kinship tesminalogy a n d Serbian kinship system w a s negligible. Turks w e r e polygynous, while Serbs remained throughout the time m o n o g y n o u s . Therefore in the Serbian language there is n o term for the HuliJi, 69 T h em a x i m u m w o u l db e 532 years.  72  that is for a co-wife. Since the institution of polygyny did not exist, the term if ever created or adapted would be superfluous. S o m e influence of Turkish kinship terminology is felt in Serbian v only in three instances: B A B O ,B A 8 A J K 0 and P A S A .B A B Q is o n e of the non-standard terms for father. B A B A J K O is derivative from B A B Q , but the genius of the language from which it is borrowed is completely disregarded. It is completely Serbianized. T h e affectionate t e r m for P A 5 E I M 0 G is P A S A which coincides with the Turkish I M 0 ( \ l k i n word. This coincidence is exploited mostly in a h u m o r o u s m a n n e r . Of all the three terms that s h o w s o m e influence of Turkish, it is significant to note that n o n e of t h e m is the standard term. Out of the 3 0 0 0 Turkish w o r d s (or w o r d s introduced into Serbian through the m e d i u m of the Turkish language) only three are in a w a y kin-terms. T h e precentage is low. The Serbian kinship terminology w a s completed by 1371 and the system did not w a n t to yield. In spite of the intimate connection with the R u m a n i a n people, there is not a single term a m o n g the Serbian kin terms that c l E a r l y points to R u m a n i a n influence. Of all the neighbouring languages Bulgarian is the only Slavonic one. S a m e terms are similar, probably because af the c o m m o n origin. There is only o n e that is clearly Bulgarian: T A T K O , the term for the father. Like B A B O , it also has a mildly comical connotation. T h e fact that the term for father c o m e s from the foreign languages is not convincing e n o u g h for one to conclude that the Serbian w o m e n w e r e marrying foreigners, particularly Turks a n d Bulgarians. T h e historic evidence d o e s not s h o w proof for such a  73  conclusion, yhy t w o foreign w o r d s for father exist in the Serbian kinship terminology is not of p a r a m o u n t importance considering that they are only t w o out of ten terms, a n d both are non-standard. 70 S b h n e e w e i s  thinks that there are about 2 0 0 0 G e r m a n  w o r d s in the Serbian language. Out of such a n u m b e r of borrowed word he suggests only t w o of the kin terms as having b e e n borrowed from G e r m a n . Both of t h e m h a v e serious limitations. The first term S 0 G 0 R is not borrowed directly from G e r m a n (Schwager), but w a s introduced into Serbian through the m e d i u m of the Hungarian language, w h e r e it acquired the form of S D G O R .  W h e t h e r or not Hungarian S 0 G 0 R  c o m e s  from the G e r m a n S C H W A G E R is outside of the scope of this study. It is true that the term S 0 G 0 R exists in both Serbian a n d Hungarian. It is very likely that the term S 0 G 0 R is closer to the genius of the Hungarian kinship terminology than to the Serbian. S 0 G 0 R is a classificatory term which is applied to six relatives, a n d the female 71 equivalent  is also relevant to six relatives. In Serbian they are  all denotative terms, so that the n u m b e r of terms is twelve c o m p a r e d with the Hungarian two. It is also worthwhile to note that this term is the only o n ec o m i n g into the Serbian language from the Hungarian. T h e second, and last, kinship term that Schneeweis considers being borrowed from G e r m a n is a term found in a manuscript from the year 1468. It is M A L Z E N A , the term for a M U Z . H e thinks that the first part of the term M A L - is identical with the G e r m a n G E M A H L . 70 Die Deutschen Lehnworter im Serbokroatischen (I960:XVI, 95-6) 71 Sogorica  74  T h e term theory  d o e s not exist in the contemporary language.  MALZENA  i s advanced  actively  that  any morphoneme t h a t  known i n t h e n a t i o n  i s once u n i v e r s a l l y and  i s never completely  l a n g u a g e . O f s u c h a t e r m p e o p l e would a t l e a s t knowledge. tely in  MALZENA  extinct.  MALZEMA  k i n term Besides  Bulgarian, had  this  Turkish)  kinship  and would  maintain  only  from t h e  a passive  of  kinship  MALZEMA  i s no e v i d e n c e  that  kinship  terminology  terminology  (German,  any o t h e r  fide  question  i n i t s t u r n any  i s outside question  t o Borne c o m p a r a t i v e  Hungarian,  language  t e r m i n o l o g y . The  influenced  documented p a p e r on t h i s rise  a s a bona  dubious.  or kinship  give  i n one m a n u s c r i p t  above-mentioned languages  there  system  occurred  recognition  upon t h e S e r b i a n  paper. A well  desirable  The f u l l  the four  o f whether S e r b i a n other  a s a term  i s therefore  any i n f l u e n c e  expelled  does n o t meet t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s . I t i s c o m p l e -  t h e XV c e n t u r y .  Serbian  The  the scope o f  i s highly  studies.  B I B L I O G R A P H Y  76  Brkic, Jovan Moral Concepts in Traditional Serbian Epic Poetry 's-Gravenhage: M o u t o n & Co., 1961  Burr, Malcolm (trans.), The C o d e of Stephan D u s a n F r o m e and L o n d o n : Butler & T a n n e r Ltd., 1950 Childs, G.M. U m b u n d u Kinship & Character London, N e w York, Toronto: Oxford- University Press, 1949 Cross, S.H. Slavic Civilization T h r o u g h the A g e s Cambridge, M a s s . : Harvard University Press, 1948 Slavic Culture T h r o u g h the A g e s Cambridge, M a s s . : Harvard University Press 1948 Curtis, W.E. Revell, 1903  J _ h e Turk and His Lost Provinces Chicago: Fleming H. " " "  De Josselin de Jong,J.P.B. Levi-Strauss s Theory on Kinship and Marriage Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1952 1  Dragic, N a d a ( e d « ) . Kralievic M a r k o Belgrade: M l a d o Pokolenje, 1959 Durdev, B. (ed,). Historija naroda Juqoslavi.je Zagreb: Skolska knjiga, 1959 ~ Dvornik, F. The Slavs in European History and Civilization New Brunswick, New Jersey; Rutgers University Press, 1962 The Slavs; Their Early History and Civilization Boston: American A c a c f e m y of Arts and Sciences, 1956  Eggan, F. (ed.). Social Anthropology of North American Tribes Chicago: The University of Chicago press, 1955 Halpern, J.M. A Serbian Village Press, 1958 ~ H o n i g m a n n , J.J. The World of Man  New York: Columbia University New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959  Inglis, G.B. An Approach to the Quantitative Study of Kinship in a Western-type Society Vancouver: Master's thesis, The University of British Columbia, 1964  Kushner, G. et al W h a t Accounts for Sociocultural C h a n g e ? Chapel Hil University of North Carolina, 1962 Malinowski, B„ The D y n a m i c s of Culture C h a n g e New H a v e n : Yale University Press, 1961 Markovic, 5, Ddabrani spisi Ncvi Sad:  Budunnost, 1961  77 Medenica, R. (ed.), Prilozi groucavanju n a r o d n e poezije Beograd: N a r o d n a Prosveta, }939 Milisavac, Z, (ed.), Antoloqi.jg- narodnih umotporina Novi Sad: Zmaj, 1957 Mosely, P.E. The Peasant Family/: The Zadruga, or C o m m u n a l JointFamily in the Balkans in Caroline Mare, ed., The Cultural Approach to History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940 Mousset, A. The World of the Slavs London: Stevens & Sons, 1950 M u r d o c k , G.P.  Social Structure N e w York: The Macmillan C o m p a n y , 1949  N e w m a n , B. Balkan Background N e w York: The Macmillan C o m p a n y , 1945 Sanders, I.T. Balkan Village Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press, 1949 Schneeweis, E, Die Deutschen Lehnworter im Serbokroatischen in Kulturqeschichtlicher Sicht Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1960  Ponsioen, J.A. The Analysis of Social C h a n g e Reconsidered •s-Gravenhage M o u t o n & Co., 1962 Stanojevic, S. Iz nase proslosti Beograd: G e c a Hon, 1934 Stanoyevich, M. Slavonic Nations of Yesterday and T o d a y New York: The H.ul. Wilson C o m p a n y , 1925 Stevenson, D. Eskimo Kinship Terminologies Vancouver: thesis, The University of British Columbia, 1964  Master's  Strakhovsky, L.I. (ed.). A H a n d b o o k of Slavic Studies Cambridge, M a s s . : Harvard University Press, 1949 Subotic, D. Yugoslav Popular Ballads Cambridge: University Press, 1932  A P P E N D I X  79  H A L P E R N 'S  A C C O U N T  T h e average villager can trace his ancestry b a c k six to eight generations, without the benefit of a n y written record.. a peasant belonging to the I M e d i c vamilija, without a n y notes and with few uncertainties, traced his origin to tj^e, w i d o w I M e d a , w h oc a m e to Orasac in the late eighteenth century. Proceeding through the m a l e line h e identified all her descendants,including the m o r e than t w o hundred m e m b e r s of the Nedic clan living in the village today, as well as m a n y w h oh a d left Orasac two or e v e n three generations ago. In addition h ew a s able to tell the native village a n d in m a n y cases the original clan n a m e s of the brides of the various ( M e d i c man. His k n o w l e d g e w a sm o s t complete o n those of his m a l e ancestors from w h o m he w a s directly descended, For t h e m he g a v e approximate birth and death dates a n d specific biographical data. In all, over five hundred people within the M e d i c clan w e r e identified in o n ew a y or another. H e also recited approximate genealogies for several other Orasac clan groups, particularly those which h a d intermarried with his own. Although it would b e something of an exaggeration to say that h e could precisely identify his o w n relationship to all 2 , 0 0 0 o d d villagers a n d to trace the ancestry of all the clans in Orasac, nevertheless he w a s able to give approximate idea of the degree of relationship a m o n g a significant portion of the village population. Y o u n g m e n in their twenties are s o m e t i m e s able to identify as m a n y as several h u n d r e d kinsfolk. (Halpern 1 9 5 8 : 1 5 7 )B y the term "several hundred" w e understand at least 300. This should be c o m p a r e d with the finding of H . C o d e r e . As a m p l e of 200 Vassar College students c o m i n g mostly from the northeastern United States could identify only 30 to 33 kinsmen, of w h o m six or seven w e r e deceased.  72 Halpern, J.M. A Serbian Village N e w York: Columbia University Press, 1958 p.156 73 I M e d i c w a s interviewed in 1 9 5 3 5 4 .  B O T H E C O D E O FS T E P H A N D U S A N 7 In the C o d e of Stephan D u s a n  7 5 from the year 1 3 49  there  " are the following mention of the relatives: Article 52 For treason for any case brother shall not pay for brother, father for son, kinsman for kinsman, if they dwell separately in their o w n houses; he w h o hath not sinned shall not pay anything. Only shall he pay w h o hath sinned, he and his household (Zadruga), The principle of individual responsibility is firmly established. The zadruga is considered as such a tightly-nit unit that the principle of collective responsibility is confined only to the zadruga, and not to the village or any other group. Article 66  W h e n brothers are together in one h o u s e and s o m e o n e s u m m o n s t h e m before the court, he shall dispute the case w h o m the court shall indicate. But if it SD be that one- of t h e m be at the Tsar's court or at the court of justice and he c o m e and say: "I will submit m y elder brother to the court," then let him do so and let him not be driven b y force to the court,. The oldest brother has a privilege and duty to defend his y o u n g e r brothers in court. If the brothers do not dwell with their father, primogeniture is of u t m o s t importance. Article 71  W h o s o c o m m i t a crime, a brother or son or kinsman, w h o dwel in one house, all shall pay to the lord (gospodar) of the house, or h a n d over him w h o did the crime.  74 Translated f r o m the Old Serbian b y Malcolm Burr. 75 The middle-fourteenth century is considered to be a s u m m i t of the Serbian mediaeval culture.  81  Article 104  The officer (pristav) of the court shall not call u p o n a wife w h e n the h u s b a n d is not at h o m e , nor shall a wife be s u m m o n e to court without her husband, but a wife shall give her h u s b a n d notice w h e n she g o e s to court. And in that matter a h u s b a n d is guiltless, until she give him notice. In the wife-husband t e a m , the h u s b a n d is the m o r e important m e m b e r , w h e n one of the two has to deal with the law. Article 152 . . . A n d on a jury there m a y be neither k i n s m a n nor e n e m y .  82 L A T I N T R A N S S C R I P H J I O N O FT H ES E R B I A N C Y R I L L I C A L P H A B E T A a B b  as a in calm  V V G g D d  as g in go  Dj dj E e  as gi in Italian giorno  V  •  as e in ten  1 z z z  as s in pleasure as s in rose  I i  as i in fit as V in yes  3 j K k L 1 Lj lj M m  as il in failure  N n Nj nj 0 o P P R r S s  as ni in onion as a in all  as s in so  T t t  C c U u F f H h C c V  V  C c Dz dz V  S s  as c in Italian citta o o k as oo in b  e r m a n Z i m m e r as z in G as ch in church as j in judge as sh in shut  N.B. The order of the Cyrillic alphabet is followed.  83 I N V E N T O R Y OF THE baba babajko baka babo ba j a bata bela  pcela  bogom  pobratim  bogom  posestrima  brale brat bratanac bratanica bratic braticina V  bratuce bratuced bratucic b r a t od s t r i c a b r a t od t e t k e b r a t Dri u j a k a brae a vamilija v e n c a n i kum verenik verenica verenici  generacija gospodar gospodin gospodja  S E R B I A N K I N S H I P T E R M S  d a d a dever f  deveric devericic devericna d e d a dedica d e k a dete deca djever djeveric djevericic V  zena zaova zaovic zaovic ina zet zetonja iztrisce jetrva koleno koljeno keva kcer kcerka i  kci k u m k u ma k u m i c  k u m s t v a k u m c e 1 juba 1jubovca m a jka m a m a r n a m i c a m a t e r m a c e h a macija m e zi m a c m e z imica m e zi m c e V  m u z nakcnjce n a k a n a n a n e c a k necakin ja ozeniti se otac ccuh pastor pastorak pastorka pastorce V  pasa p a s e n o g pobratim pobrEBtimstvo po krvi  polubrat polusestra p a m a j k a pa m l e k u p o o c i m porodica pasvojak posvojka posvojce posestrima p o s o p a c posopci prababa. pradeda pra-prababa pra-pradeda praroditslji pra-praunuk pra-praunuka pra-praunuce p r a u n u k praunuka praunuce praunucica prija prijatelj prijatelji prika punica rodbina raditelji rod ja rodjak rodjaka  rodjaci rucni dever sva ja svas svastika svekar svekrva svojta seja seka sestra sestra od strica . sestra od tetke sestra od ujaka sestric sestrica sestricina sin sinak sinovac sinovica sinko sna sna ja snajka snaha snasa stara starama jka. stari svat starDjko stari strika striko strina.  stric •  stricevina stricevie stricevici V  stricek suprug supruga supruznik V  supruznica V  supruznici taka tast tasta tata tatica tatkc teta tetak tetka tetkic tetkici tetkica teca cale caca cer udati se uja ujak ujevina uievic r  ujevici ujka ujkica  ujko ujo u jna u n u k u n u k a u n u c e familija V  c ika V  cika v  V  cica V  covek c u k u n b a b a c u k u n d e d a • c u k u n u n u k V c u k u n u n u k a < / * c u k u n u n u c e  v  <r  cukununucica sogor sogorica seer V /  sci V  sura surak sum ja ja V  9 0 G R A P H I C A L L Y N O N R E P R E S E N T E D KIN T E R M S b o g o m pobratim b o g o m posestrima vamilija V  vencani k u t n verenik verenica verenici generacija dete deca iztrisce koleno kd jeno k u m k u ma f  k u m i c k u m s t v c </  k u m c e m e z i m a c mez i m c e mezimica nakonjce •zeniti se pastor pastorak paatorka  p^storce pobratim pobratimstvo po krvi polubrat polusestra po mleku porodica posvojak posvojka V  POSVOJCB  posestrima p o s o p a c posopci praroditelji prijatelji rodbina roditelji rod ja rodjak rodjaka rodjaci rucni devBr svojta stari stari svat starojkD stricevina stricevici Y  supruznici tetkici  ujevina ujevic'i udati se familija  A=0  a b a p r o — p r a d e d o pro- pra b  A= 0  c u k u n d e d ac u k u n b a b a  h  A=0  p r a d e d ap r a b a b o  d e d a b a b a d e k a b ak a dedica  n a n a n a k a s t a r a m a j k a  A=0  strina stric  teca  striko  t e t a k  t e t k a t e t o  A = [AHO]  o c u h  p o o c i m  m a j k a  toto  m o m a  tatico  tetkica  cica cika  otac  caca  u j a k  punica  m o c i j a  m a m i c a  A=  tasta  p o m a j k a  m o t e r  0=A  tetka teca  ujna  e t a k teta t  u j k o  tetkica  uja  n a n a  b o b a j k o  k e v a  u j k o  tatko  stara  ujo  b a b o  stricek  fast  m a c e h a  ujkica  ciko strika  A=0  o,  taka stari cole  A b r a t o d strica stricevic  o  sestra o d strica  A  o  A == 0  d t e t k e b r a t o d t e t k e sestra o  b r a t  tetkic  s n o j o  zet  b a t a s n a j k a  sestro  s n a h a s n a  sestrica  s n a s a sogorica  d a d a  o  sejo  A  bratic  broticina  sestric  bratanac  bratanica  n e c a k  sinovac  sinovica  , .° s u r a ks u r n j a j o A = =  prija  suro sogorica  priko  sogor  g o s p o d a  brole  A  s o g o r  A= prijataj  s u p r u g o  zetonja s e k a  b r a c a  baja  A =O EGO zena  A == 0  Ijuba  . V.  necakinja sestricina  A==o  sin  o = =A  snajo  cerka zet  s i n k o  snajka  kci  s i n a k  s n a h a  kcer  bratuced  sna  b r a t u c e  snasa sogorica  cer  V /.  seer SCI  A= o  o  u n u k a  u n u k u n u c e  A = 0  o p r a u n u k a prounucica  praunuce  A= 0  o  c u k u n u n u k  c u k u n u n u k a cukununucica  c u k u n u n u c e  A  o  pra-praunuk  pra- p r a u n u k a  pra-praunuce  bela pcela  bela pcela  s o g o r  k c e r k a  bratucic  p r a u n u k  zetonjo  | p a s e n o g  svas p a s a svaja s o g o r sogorica  ljubovca  o  0 = A svostiko  A  O  A  o  d tetke r a to d t e t k esestra o bratodujaka sestra o d u j o k ab ujevic  tetkic  A=0 s v e k a r  A=0 zet s o g o r  A  A=0  zaova sogorica  dever -dever  svekrva  jetrva  m u z  sogorica  suprug  = =0  covek gospodin g o s p o d a r  A zaovic  1 o zaovicina  1  A  f  devericic -devericic deveric -deveric  n O d e v e r i c n a  EGO  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0105362/manifest

Comment

Related Items