SEBO-CROATIAN KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY (l) Eugene A. Hanmel Introduction Kinship terminologies have been a subject of anthropological concern for two principal reasons: their systemic character which makes them subject to formal analysis, and their correspondence with the categories of persons involved in particular social relations. Most investigations along` thse lines have been in the terminologies of groups whose languages are outside of Indo-European and in socie- ties often considerably different from our own. Thin paper is an investigation of a kinship system in the anthro- pologically neglected area of European peasant society; it has as its focal point the Serbo-Croatian kinship termiaology9 with comparative data drawn from neighboring Albania. In it we attbmpt three things: First, to record items of fact which have been investigated only occa- sionally *nd even more rarely published. Second, to perfor -a semaan- tic analys-is of the data of the kind which anthropologists have been doing for a-half-century , but to which Louanbury (1958) has recently brought a welcome degree of formal rigor. Third, to point out those features of social organization in Yugoslav peasant society which achieve the same or different categorizations of kin as does the term- inology, and to consider the logical relationshipV between the two categorizations0 The data are presented in sufficient detail so that the reader may check the-analysis in terms of themg and the conclu- sions in terms of both data and analysis. The analysis its-elf is given in a formal fashion so that the reader may determine whether or not it is logically adequate to the problem. The work. is thus open to discussion on matters of fact, of procedure9 and of final inference0 The data presented here were gathered from ten sources, two of which were literary and eight of which were informants. Three of the informants and one literary source present information from Croatia- Slavonia, and the remaining five informants and one literary source present information from Serbia. In several cases, informants pre- sented information which was limited in amount but nevertheless entire- ly consistent with the fuller information given by another informant from the same geographic area. In such cases, the information from the informants was combined9 so that the informant giving the maxi amount of information is listed here as the principal source and those giving lesser amounts as supplementary sources. Thus, from the ten original sources we have drawn five lists of kin terms. In Table I each of these lists is numbered (.I-') . wandL.the principal and 45 supplementary sources for each list are given in Appendix I. Some additional data were drawn from two other literary sources but were not considered as basic to the analysis because of their scanty char- acter or doubtful provenience; these are Krauss (1885) and Durham (1928). Kin Terms In the list of terms to follow (Table I), the first column con- tains the term for the kin class in Serbo-Croatian (in capital letters) followed in parentheses by its nearest English equivalent. Alternate terms occurring in free or limited variation with those found in the first column of the table are specified in Appendix II. In the second through sixth columns of Table II (numbered I-V) are the appropriate denotata of the term given in the first colum. These are written with the customary abbreviations for kin types. 'Where no confusion is possible, abbreviations for English kin classes may be used to con- se-rve space, e.go, GrFa, ChSo. Any class so denoted contains all the kin types that the English class of identical denotation would include. A question mark after the denotation of a kin type indicates that the informant was in doubt or that the source was not clear on the matter; any other points in doubt are so indicated by reference to an euduote. Terms of address are the vocative forms of the referential terms given (cf. pp. 13, 15). One will note that no affinal terms have been included. The method of classifying affines is rather different from that of class- ifying consanguineal relatives and is not dealt with here (2). While the reader is again referred to Appendix I for a detailed list of the informants included in the composite sources given in Table I, we may note briefly that Sources I-III present information from Croatia-Slavonia and Sources IV-V from Serbia. 46 T A B L B I S O U R C E Term MAJIA (mother) OTAC (father) SIX (son) ezRK (daughter) BRUT (brother) MS RL (sister) 8TC (uncle) UJAK (uncle) TMA (aut) MAT OD (cousia)(4) TIU OD (o*uaia)(4) I Mo FN so D Br Si FaBr II Mo Fa so D Br si FsBr Fa?aBr Iv Mo Fa So Da Br Si PaBr v Mo Fa So D& Br Si FaBr MoFaBr MoBr FPFPBrSo FapasiSo FsMoDrSo FaMoSiSo MoBr MoBr III Mo Fa so Da Br Si FaBr FaFBr F&MoBr(3) FaarSo FaFaSiSo F&MoBrSo FaMoSiSo MoBr MoFaBr MoFaBrSo. MoFaSiSo? MoMoEBrSo MoMoSiSo FaSi MoSi FF aSi FaMoSi MoFaSi M,MoS PaFaBrDa FaSiDa FaloBrDa FaMoSiD& MoFaBrDa MoFa iDa MoMoBrDa MoM4oSiD MoDr FaoEBr MolbBr FSi MoSi FaFi FMoi MoFai MoMoSi Fai meal MoFPBrSo MoFaSiSo MoMoBrSo MoMoSiSo Fasi MoSi FWaFarDa FaFaSiDa FaMoBDrD FaMoSiDa MoFaBrDa MoF aSiDa MoMoBrDa MoMoSiDa FaBrSo MoBrSo paSiSo MoSiSo FBrDa MoBrDa F aiDa MoSiDa FaSI Mosi FIBrUo MoBrSo FaSiSo MoSiSo FaBrDa MoBrDa FaSiDa MOSiDa FaBrSo FaBrDA 47 Tern MD (grandfather) DD (gruadother) nax ((nephew) BUKNJA (niece) BU N C (neph ew)(,7) BIL?ANICA (niece) (7) BIATIC (cousin) I Pap mon Mo 81B. SrID BrDs FaDo BA I1IA (cousin) SDTMRI6 (nephew)(9) TMhNA (nilee) STIVI6 (cousiA) S!RI6MA (cousia) Slso liDs FaBruo FaDrDa II FFaN MF. Mo aso(s) SDrD(5) BrDuS. BrSo IIl MP. F.M mwoM Slo(sf) sis(f) BrDa(5) BrDs? Brso?(8) F.BI Fabilo MoBrSo Mosiso BrD?(8) FPD4D FASIDD M0BruD MoSiDa SiSo SiDs PsBrSo FBrD FaBrSo FaBrD& 48 Iv lloFa Bar FMoBr MoFPBr MoMoBr MoM. FaMoSi MoFSi MoMoSi) 51i0(6) BrDs BrSo F.BrSoSo FaS iSoSo MoBrSoSo MoSiSoSo BrDu FeBrSoD& F&SISoDa MoBrSoDa MoSiSoDa V FaF~ ~ Fr MoF. FaFair MFaDro moM. FaFaSi FaMoSi MoFalSi MoMoSr BrDo BrDs Sino SIDs a15o FaDDaSo FaSiDaSo MoBrDsSo MoSiDaSo FaBDuDaD FPSiDaD McBrDsD MoSID&Da Term W&VIC (cousin)(10) WJJI (cousin) TETIC (cousin) TETI&L (cousin) U1 (grandson) MWUU (graddaughter) PRNUK (greatgrandson) I MoBrSo MoBrDa MoSiSo F^SiDw MoSiDa SoSo DaSo SoDa DaDa ChChSo RONUEK (greatgranddaugter) ChChDa p _APUK (greatgreat- grandson) PRAPRAUNUKA (greatgreat- granddaughter) DE. PEL (greatgreat- grandchild) PlANE AK (greatnephew) GrGrrSo GOrOrDa PRANECAKUNJA (greatnisee) PRaD (greatgrandfather) BRADA (groatgrand.other) RAPRAUDD (groatgreat- grandfathor) PR ADAB (greatgreast grandaother) &taINEBD (greatgreat- grandfather) GrOrFa Grrlo orGrF II MoBrSo MoBrDa FoaiSo MoSiSo FaSiDa MoSiDa SoSo DaSo SoDa ChChSo ChChDa rGOrSo rGrrOrDa BrSoSo BrDaSo SiSoSo SiDaSo BrSoDa BrDaDa SiSoDa SiDaD GrOrF WrrMo III MoBrSo MoBrDa FaSiSo MoSiSo FaSiDa MoSiDa iv V SoSo SoSo DaSo DaSo BrSoSo BrDaSo SiSoSo SiDaSo SoDa SoDa Da&D Da BrSoDa BrDaDa SiSoDa SiDaD ChChSo ChChSo Br/SiChChSo ChChDb ChChD& Br/SiChChD& DrOrOrSo arGrGrNe OrrOD& GrorOrNi BrSoSo BrDaSo SiSoSe SiDao BrSoDa BrDaD S1SoDa SiDaD rOrFa GrOro rGrOror GrOrFa GrorMo GrGrGrFa GrororMo arGrGGFa GrOrGrFa GrOrOrFa 49 SoSo Deo BrSoSo BrDaSo SiSoSo SiDaSo SoDa DaD BrSoDa BrDaD SiSoDa ChChSo Br/S1ChChSo ChChDa Br/SiChQaDa GrOrFa GrorMo GrGrGa haIM &KUIBL-1L (wr.tgreat- p'mbth.r) 3OWJAK (oeuia) 3OJS53A (ousia) -a x,GI r b1 s om meIals PO3Da rXin mae oeuul tfl. owuia III . V mle o9usia male ousl ftmale 0sia :female cousi 3am (Bud oeusm ) Wi6 (Bad ousi)(ll) uuz61 (Bid oosia) ZvouIN used, but umdef 1usd used, but udeflaed loaml (ajeotiMe ther's him motmer' hcim liel or prily relatiye father's kim mother' him U liaeal or -ave relative inon z (adjeetive) V 1.3rOhc 3.Drchch F.aichch 3.Sichch FBarchIb F.aichch F- orCh 3osiQack lineal or primry relative collateral relat*iv collateral relative oollateral relative .50 The first step of abstraction of the data given in Table I was to group Sources I-III (Croatian) and Sources IV-V (Serbian). The differ- ences between members of a single group are less than those between members of the separate groups. Although some similarities between members of the two groups (I-III and IV-V) are obscured by such group- ing, reference to Table I will always indicate the original distribu- tions, and these are preserved in the symbolic notation in Table II. As an example, we may note the use of the term neak by members of both groups, although the term is absent in the rural Serbian data. The virtue of the grouping is that certain central principals of organiza- tion are thus clearly isolated as Croatian or Serbian. In the analysis to follow, we will make certain general observa- tions about the common characteristics of both the Serbian and the Croatian groups, pass to a discussion of the principles of organization peculiar to one or the other, and conclude with a tabular and textual recapitulation of the principal similarities and differences between the two bodies of data. In terms of biological distance from Ego, there is an area of agreement between all the terminologies listed, i.e., that including all lineal relatives (with the minor exception here of some disagree- ment on the denotata for the terms hukunded and aukumba, all primary relatives, and all collateral relatives of the first ascending genera- tion. Inconsistencies occur outside of this area in the total body of data, as they do in the testimony of any one informant. A further note of interest is that, within the area of perfect agreement, except for the second and lower descending generations, complementary male and female kin types (Fa-Mo, Br-Si) are designated by different lexical roots, while the complementary male and female kin types outside this area of agreement are designated by morphologically feminine or mascu- line variants of the same root (necak-ne6aki'. unuk-unuka). The distinction of sex of relative by separate lexical root extends outside this area of perfect agreement only in those cases where terms for relatives within the area are extended outside 'it (FaSiSo and Br = BRAT; FaSiDa and Si = SESTRA). A distinctive feature within the area of agreement in the first ascending generation is the merging of aunts and the separation of uncles (Au, FaBr, MoBr). These distinctions are common to both the Croatian and the Serbian systems in the first ascending generation, and are further operative for the subsuming of more removed relatives under the same terms. For example, consult Table I under TETKA (Au), Source II, for Croatian FaSi, FaFaSi. See Source IV under the same term for Serbian FaSi, FaFaSiDa. These distinctions are retained in both systems but applied differently to more removed kin, as will be explained below. Another feature, basic to the Serbian system but absent in the Croatian one, is the merging of siblings and cousins of the same sex. 51 The terminological merging is found in co mon usage in reference to relatives of Ego's generation and is basic to the categorization of collateral relatives of the descending generations. Fuller explana- tion of this feature will be given below, but we may note here that the terminological merging of the children of Br and FaBrSo follows from the designation of Br as brat and FaBrSo as brat od strica. For the purposes of analysis to follow, we will assume that the classes BRAT and BRAT OD, and SESTRA and SESTRA OD are merged into two: BRAT and SESTRA, even though common usage for non-primary rela- tives in these categories is often specific. e.g. brat od strica (4). In detailed analysis of the kin classes we have found it conven- ient to denote individual kin types and the significata of kin class- es in a simple symbolic notation. The biological features which are distinguished in the notation are: generation level, lineality or collaterality, sex of relative, and sex of linking relative(s). Each of these features but sex is presented in the notation by a symbol: generation m 0, lineality = L, collaterality = C. We have chosen to indicate sex in a manner after that suggested by Radeliffe-Brown; cap- ital letters indicate males and lower case letters indicate females. WithfinG (or g) the following generat.ion classes may be distinguished, where the superscripts ny m are any positive: integers: G = Ego's generation = = first ascending generation Gl+n Gl = second and higher ascending generations G first descending generation G 1-n further descending gen6ratibns The basic elements of the notation have thus been defined. Th4se may be combined in the notations for kin t;ypes or classes. Where the kin type-denoted is also a terminological class, the notation for the type will be completely enclosed in parentheses. Where the kin type denoted is not also a terminological class, it will not be so enclosed. As an example, in (GnL)GnC) t C). (GnL) is a terminological class, GnC is not, but (GnL)GnC) is; G C is not, but the total expression is. Combinations of basic kin types are to be read from left to right; the first kin type is the first linking relative, the second kin type the second linking relative, and so on, to-the relative denoted by the class0 The juxtaposition of any two kin types in the notation, unsep- arated by a comma, indicates a consanguiineal link, just as Fa}aBrSo is read, "father's tathergs brother's son," 'without specific indication of the genitive in the abbreviation. As.an example, (01L)G1C)G0C) is read, left to right, FaBrSo. Alternatively, it may be read from right to left as, "a collateral male relative .of . Egols generation, related to Ego through a collateral male relative of the first ascending generation and a lineal male relative of the first-aseending generation."1 The superiority of the notation over the verbal deocription in terms of economy is apparent, and its superiority over the standard abbreviated notation, FaBrSo, lies in the fact that we are no longer dependent on 52 the meanings of English kin types in dealing with a different term- inological system. It enables aus to work in Serbo-Croatian without knowing the language. Serbian In the Serbian system, we may begin the analysis by distinguishing generation levels and then making further distinctions within those levels bn the basis of the criteria mentioned above, i.e., lineality or collaterality, sex of the relative, sex of the1 4nkia relative. All five generation levels are distinguished: G0, G', G-1-n. In Gl+n and Gl-n distinguish: a) Sex of relative. This will, within any one generation, dis- tinguish all individuals. Example: DED = (G2) "any male relative of the second ascending generation" UNUKA = 2 "any female relative of the second descending generation." Since the structure of the system does not change with fur- 3 ther ascending or descending generations, e.g., PRllED = (G), 3 PRABABA = (g ), we are tentatively omitting specification of the prefixation pattern for particular generations. In G0, distinguish: a) Lineality and collaterality. This will establish the latent classes of p4rents and parent9s siblings. b) Sex of relative. This establishes the ter*ninological classes OTAC = Fa = (L)MAJK. Mo =MO 1), and TETKA = Au c (g c). c) Sex of the linking relative in 0 in the latent class, uncle. This establishes the terminological classes STRIC = FaBr = 11 1 1 (GL)GC) and UJAK = MoBr = (g 1)GlC). 0 In GO, distinguish: a) Sex of relative* This establishes the classes of BRAT = Br = 00 (G ) and SESTRA = Si = (go). Here we have merged the BRAT and BRAT OD, SESTRA and SESTRA OD classes into two, as noted above. In G ,1 distinguish: a) Lineality and collaterality. This will establish the latent classes of child and sibling's child (if sibling = BRAT or SESTRA, as noted). b0 b) Sex of the linking r'elati've in 0 in the latent class of 53 siblingts child. This yields, in G1, the latent classes of BrCh and SiCh, in addition to that of own child. c) Sex of relative. This yields the terminological classes SIN X So (G CERA Da (g 1), BRATANAC m BrSo m (G )fG C) BRATANICA = BrDa = (G )g c), SESTRIC m SiSo m (g0)G 1C), and 0 -1 SESTRI6INA= SiDa = (g )g c). d) Note that sex of the linking relative is occasionally not dis- tinguished, yielding the classes SIN, CEEKA, NEC.AK NECAKINJA, as in the Croatian system. See endnotes 5, 6. The categorization of relatives may be schematically represented. as follows (English kin types are briefly indicated-see Table I): PRAUED PRABABA GrGrFa GrGrMo DED BABA GrFa GrMo STRIC UJAK OTAC MAlJX TETKA FaBr MoBr Fa Mo Au BRAT ego SESTRA Br/Co Si/Co BRATANAC BRATANICA SIN CERKA SESTRIC SESTRI6INA Br/CoSo Br/CoDa So Da Si/CoSo Si/CoDa UNUK UNU GrSo/Ne OrDa/Ni PRAUNUK PRAUNUKA GrGrSo/Ne GrGrDa/Ni One will note that the primary asymetry in the schematic represen- tation as well as in the generation list preceding it lies in the diff- erence between the grouping of relatives in Gl and G-1, and within G1, itself. The sex of the linking relative is not distinguished in the class TETKA. Further, as we will make clear in an illustration to follow, it is the sex of the linking relative in G1, i.eog the first in the chain of relatives moving out from Ego, that classifies uncles as STRIC or WUAK. It is the sex of the linking relative in G0, i.e., the last in the chain of relatives moving out from Ego, that classified nephews and nieces as BRATANAC-BRATANICA or SESTRI6-SESTRI6INL. In both cases, how- ever, it is the sex of aterminologially primary relative that is crucial. 54 Since the prefix, Era, is used in a regular fashion (except in the case of 6ukunded and ikm a) to indicate generations succes- sively removed from Ego. we may take as basic clasees of the Serbian system those indicated by the terms: IED, BABA, STRIC W1JEk OUAC MAtK, TETKAs BRAT, SESTES, BRATANAC, BRATANICA, SINi, ^E YSESTRIC, SESTRICINA, UNK, and UNUKA (see Appendix II for alternate terms). If we accept the schematic. representation of the kin classes as ill- ustrative of the rules of the system and bear in mind the equivalence of siblings and cousins, as stated, as well as the distinctions between FaBr, MoBr, and Au, we may classify any kin type in the system. We may not in this way tlexplaintQ the system, but only illustrate its consistency. Let us consider the class in which we would place Ego's FaFaBrSo. To Ego's father, that individual is FaBrSo, therefore son of stric or brat od strica. As such, he may be considered equivalent to brat by Fa. To Ego, then, that individual is equivalent to FaBr, or in the class STRIC. In the same way, FaMoBrSo is the son of father's mak, and therefore is brat od ujaka to father, or terminologically equiva- lent to FaBr to Ego' As such, he is again in the class STRIC to Ego. On the other hand, MoFaBrSo is the son of mother9s tric, and is mother's brat,od strica, therefore MoBr to Ego and would be in the clas WUAK to Ego. Likewise, MoMoBrSo is terminologically equivalent to MoBr to Ego and is therefore in the class WAK to him. Thus, all males of the first ascending generation related to Ego through Fa are in the class STRIC, and all related to Ego through Mo are in the class WAI. This explanation was explilctly furnished by one of the Serbian informants. When we turn to the designations for collateral relatives in the first descending generation. the merging of siblings with cousins is again crucial. For example, FaBrSoSo is assigned as follows: FaBrSo to Ego is brat od strica and equivalent to brat. The son of brat is in all cases bratanac; therefore FaBrSoSo is equivalent to BrSo in the class BRATANAC. Likewise, FaSiSoSo is the son Of Ego s brat od tetke; the latter is equivalent to brat, and the son is therefore again classified as BRATANAC. On the other hand, FaBrDaSo, being the son of Ego's sestra od stricae or of an individual equivalent to Ego's sestra, is in the class SESTRICo Again, FaSiDaSo is the son of sestra od tetke, or of an individual equivalent to sestra and is therefore in the class SESTRIC, regardless of the sex of the relative in any but the final linking poeitiono For another example, how Is it that FaFaBr is merged with FaFa in the class DED? This merging is a corollary of the position of Ego with respect to FaFaBr. Ego's father is BrSo to FaFaBr; as such, he is in the class BRATANAC to FaFaBr. Ego. as the son of a member of the class BRATAC can only be unuk to FaFaBr. If Ego to k to FaFaBr, thetn aFaBr is ded to himo If the reader would like to construct further examples, it might be helpful to point out the specific reciprocal term pairs. Reciprocal 55 sets are separated by a colon, the slash (/) separates classes distin- guished by sex of relative or linking relative. Praded/prababa : /r uka e/baba: unul/unuka Otacjma ka : sin 6erka Brat/sestra : bratsestra Stric/ujak/tetka: bratanac:jbratanicasestri6/sestri6ina Four other systems of designating relatives occur in the testimony of Source V and are mentioned in the literature; these crosscut the other terminological categories. The class RODJAK-ROWJAKINJA applies broadly to all collaterals and is translated, "cousin," or "relative." More specifically. it applies to collaterals in Ego's or the descending generations at least twice removed. Another system differentiates between RODBINA and SVOJTA, i.e., between father's and mother's rela- tives, respectively. The third system differentiates between the des- cendants, in the first descending generation, of Egols FaBr MoBr, and Au (9). The classes in the third system are: STRIEVI, WJEVI, and TETKICI, respectively. The fourth system distinguishes lineal and pri- mary from collateral relatives in cases where these are otherwise terminologically merged with the classes RODJENI and NERODJENI, respec- tively. The definitions of these classes are such that they crosscut those previously described and each other. One will note, for example, that all members of STRI EVI are also in the class RODBINA and that all UJAEVI.are also in the class SVOJTA. Members of the class TETKICI, how- ever, may be in either the class RODBINA or the class SVOJTA. Member- ship in the class RODBINA is expressed by the phrase po ocu (through father), and in the class SVOJTA by the phrase po macci (trough mother). These expre*ssions may combine with the adjectives rodjeni and nerodjeni to indicate agnatic or cognatic collaterality or lineality. For example, FaFa = rodjenil, ded oF nrodj,ni d maaici. Brat od strica may also be referred to as nero eni brat. Croatian The Croatian terminology abstracted here from Sources I-III shows more internal differentiation than does the Serbian terminology (Sources IV-V). There is sufficient consistency, however, to enable us to pre- sent it as a unit, noting the differences between sources where neces- sary. If we distinguish generation levels as before, further criteria may be applied in each generation to differentiate the terminological classes: l+n In G distinguish: a) Lineality and collaterality. The latent classes of grandparent and great uncle/great aunt are thus distinguished. 56 b) Sex of relative. This establishes the terminological classes 2 2 of DED = GrFo = (G L), BABA . GrMo . (g 1), and TETEA GrAu = 2? (g2c). c) Sex of the first linking relative (Source-II) or last linking relative (Source III). This establishes the terminological 2 22 classes STRIC = GrUn _ (0 L)G C) (Source II), (t}L)G C) (Source III); UJAK = GrUn (g21)G2C) (SOUrce II) (g11)G2C) (Source III). 2 All of the examples here are from G . In very specific refer- ential usage, the terms for collaterals could be preceded by the prefix, pra-, or the word star (old), but in common usage and in the vocative, the terms are as given. In further ex- tensions into higher generations, the remarks previously made about the use of the prefix, - apply. In 0 , distinguisht a) Lineality and collaterality. This distinguishes the latent classes of parent and uncle/aunt. b) Sex of relative. This establishes the terminological classes OTAC = Fa = (G1L), MAJKA Mo = (gl) and TET[& = Au = (g c). c) Sex of the first linking relative. This establishes the classes STRIC = FaBr = (G1L)G1C) and WJAK = MoBr m (g 1)GC). 0 In G O distinguish: a) Lineality and collaterality. The latent classes of siblings and cousins are thus distinguished. b) Sex of relative. The terminological classes BRAT = Br = (G0L) and SESTRA = Si = (g 1) are established. This criterion also makes a distinction in the latent class of cousin. c) Sex of the last linking relative in the cousin class. Sex of relative having been distinguished above, this establishes 1 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ the classes TETIC = AuSo =(g c)G C) and TETI6NA = AuDa= (g c)g c). d) Sex of the first linking relative among the remaining cousins, i.e., sex of the linking primary relative. Sex of relative having been applied this establishes the classes STRICEVIC = FaBrSo ~.(1L) G1C)00C), STRINEVItNA = FaBrDa = ( G L)G C)g0c), WJE&VC = MoBrSo = (g1)0C)GOC), and WtEVI6NA =MoBrDa= (gl1)G1C)g c). 57 -l In G , distinguish: a) Lineality and collaterality. This distinguishes the latent classes of son/daughter and nephew/niece. b) Sex of relative. This establishes the classes SIN = So = (G CE D1), 9NECAK , Ne = (G0L)G 1C), or (g01)G 1C), and NECAKINJA = Ni = (00L)g c) or (g?l)g c). c) Sex of the linking primary relative may be distinguished to establish the classes SESTRIC, SESTRI6INA, BRATANAC, BRATANICA, as in the Serbian system, above, but without extension to descendants of non-primary relatives, since siblings and cou- sins have not been merged. In G1n distinguish: a) Lineality and collaterality. This establishes the latent classes of grandchild and grandnephew/grandniece. b) Sex of relative. This establishes the terminological classes 2 2 4 UNUK = GrSo = (G L), UNUKA = GrDa = (g 1) PRANECAK = GrNe, compounded on NECAK, above, and PRANECAKINJA = GrNi, compounded on NECAKINJA, above. Use of the prefix, p is again regular for further descending generations. The categorization of relatives may be represented schematically as follows: UJAK GrUn STRI C GrUn DED GrFa BABA GrMo TETKA GrAu WUAK Un WJCE:VIC Co' UJ6EVI6NA Co STRIC OTAC Un Fa STRICEVIC6 Co STRI EVI6NA Co BRAT Br BRATANAC? Ne BRATANICA? Ni SIN So NECAK CERKA , Ne Da NECAKINJA Ni SESTRI C? Ne SESTR5INA? Ni PRANECAK GrNe PRANECAKINJA GrNi Mo ego SESTRA si TE :TKA Au TETIC Co T1ETI NA Co UNUK GrSo UNUKA GrDa 58 The rarer alternates in G are listed here with a question mark; all terms are used precisely as in the Serbian scheme, with the fol- loying exceptions. Consider the fuller set of term as basic. NECAESCAUc NJA may replace either SESTRIC/STlSNIA,g DBANAC/ BRATANICA, or both. From the testirpony ot Source. I, a well as from an alternate given 1, Source IV, NECA/NECAINJA m*y tend to replace only SESTRI/S RICINA,o or at least to replace- that ses before BRAITANAC/BIRATANICA (51 6). The alternate classes BRLTIC/BRATI6NA given by Sources I and III are similar to the classes RODJAK/ROWJAKINJA, except that they include only first cousins once removed. 1 2 One will note that the grouping of relatives in G and G is for- molly identical, in strong contrast to the Serbian system. Reference to Table I and to the notations to follow Ain Table II, however, will indicate that Sources II a?d III, while haviiAg the same formal organ- ization of categories in G , place different kin types in the kin classes of the -swe,nameo To Source III the decisive criterion is whether or not the relative is on' the motherss or fathergs side; to Source II, it is the identity of the relative to his parent that decides the question. :S6iirce III, i-n difterentisting. between relatives of the second ascending generation, continues application of the cri- terion of sex of the linking primary relati've; Source IU used the same terms for these relatives that his indi'vidual parents did. Both sour- ces were explicit on this matter. The merging of generations between collaterals in G1 and G2 is often avoided, as noted above, by the use of the term star (old), as in stari stric to indicate stric in G2 as opposed to stric in G1* The prefix, prs-, may serve the same purpose. Tabul ar Summarl In Table II will be found the symbolic notations for the major kin classes listed in the two analyses above. Each of these notations is an abstraction from the data presented and constitutes a minimum def- inition for the kin 'class, thus including the maximum number of kin types* For collateral relatives, since precise degree of collaterality is not specified, the notations are actually hypotheses which may be tested as data for more removed relatives become available. Each of the notations includes all of the kin types given in Table I for the corresponding terminological class. It may include more, as just noted in the case of collateral relatives. It will include no less, and will include no kin types subsumed under any other terminologi'cl class except those which crosscut thedsystem (RODJAK, ROU-AKNJA, RODBINA, SVOJTA, STRI&VI, WUEVI, TETKICI, ROWJENI, NERODJENI)4 In other words, the notations are non-contradictory minimal statements of the signifi- cata of the classes. In Table II9 a blank indicates identity with the item in Column II. Absence of a term is 'indicated by a dash (-);-therefore, only the differences from Colun TI are given in Coliumn IIU and I. The Rn numerals for colum-ns again refer to the source'x in the preceding anal- ysis: III includes I; IV includes V. Essential differences and 59 similarities between the two major systems (II-III, IV) and the variants between II and III should be clear in Table IIo Source IV Werges L and C in 02 where II and III do not. IV restricts the uncle-aunt terms to G1 and differentiates between-uncles as II and III do. II, however, alters the means of differentiation in G1+n. Other differences in the systems are developments of the basic ones stated. Rare alternates have been ignored for the present. (X) = any relative. TABLE II Term BED BABA OTAC M.K STRIC UJAK TETKA BRAT SESTRA SIN CERKA NECAK NECAKINJA SESTRIC SESTRI6INA BRATANAC BRATANICA UNUKA PRANECAK PRLNE6AKINJA STRICEVIC STRICEVI'NA uJ6CEVIC UJ&VI6NNA II (G2L) (g2 1) eG1 (G. L) (gl1) (GnL) GpC) (gn) cnC) (gnc) (GOL) (g 11) (0OL/g01) G-1C) (G0L/g01) g1c) (g01) G 1C) (g 1)g 1c) (G&L)FG- C) (G L)g C) (2Q (o 2L) (g-2 1) (-2 (g-2 c ) (G nL)G nC)GOC) ( GnL) GOC) g0c ) (gnl)GnC)GGOC) ( gnl)GnC)go c) SOURCE III (G0L)GC) (g 1)G C) (G1L)GnC)GPC) (GlL)GC)g0 c) (g l)GnC)G C) (gll)GIC)g c) IV (G2) 2 (g ) (G1L) JC) 1 (g C) (GO) 90) (gO) (G?/go) G-1C) (GO/g )g fc) (g0)G1lC) (g )g-lc) (G0) G1c) (0 )g c)o (G-2) (o2 ) 1 1 ~~1 (GOL) OC) GCC/g c) (STRI6EVI) 1 ~1 , 1 (gll)(1C)G lc g c) (WEY 60 Term II III IV TETIC (gnc)GO C) (g c) f1C/ gc) TETI6NA (gnc) g c) (TEI6I) BRATIC -- (G 1)GC) BRATICNA --(0 1L/g1) glc) i-n ROJAK (GGmL/gml G C) RODJAKINJA (GmL/g 1 g c) RODBINA (G1X)1) SVOJTA (g1 )x) ROWENI (L/1) NEROWJENI (C/c) A few specific notes are necessary, In column III, BRATIC and BRATI&NA are subclasses of RODJA and RODJAKINJA. In columns II and IV, the classes BRATANAC and BRATANICA are actually not different as far as formal equivalence goes, since the terms in each system are derived in the same way from BRAT, which alone is different in the two systems. In column IV, STRI6EVI, UJEVI, and TET-ICI are the formal equivalents of the same classes in column II except for the generation difference of the relative and the specification of the linking rela- tive. Essential Features of the Terminologies The principal differences and similarities between the Serbian and Croatian systems have been indicated. If we may now recapitulate and rephrase some of these, the following points become clear. 1. As Anderson (Ms) has pointed out, the classification of imme- diate collateral relatives in the first ascending generation is "mixed," i.e., bifurcate-collateral for males and lineal for females. Both the Serbian and Croatian systems are identical in this respect. The sex of the linking primary relative is the criterion of bifurcation. 2. Classification of collateral relatives in further ascending generations in the Croatian system continues the application of this mixed system, while that in the Serbian system is purely by sex and generation. In the Croatian system, there is some discrepancy on the criterion of bifurcation, but the most formal one is again sex of the linking primary relative. 3. Classification of relatives in Ego's generation is identical for primary relatives both in the Serbian and Croatian systems. For collaterals, however, the mixed system of the first ascending genera- tion is perpetuated in Ego's generation in the Croatian terminology, 61 while it is not in the Serbian terminology, which is generational in arrangement, 4. Classification of lineal relatives in the first descending generation is identical in both terminologies, but differs for collater- als. In the Serbian system, a distinction is usually made between BrCh and SiCh; since primary and removed "brothers,"' rimary and removed "sisters" were merged in Ego's generation, the children of primary and removed Isiblings" are also merged, according to the basic sex distinc- tion between Br and Si. In the Croatian system, on the other hand, all sibling's children may be merged as opposed to one's own children. Lineality is thus operative in both terminologies, but in one it dis- tinguishes particular collaterals and in the other simply collaterals in general as opposed to lineal descendants. 5. In the second descending generation. the Serbian system merges all individuals of one sex, just as in the second ascending generation. The Croatian system preserves the lineality introduced in the first descending generation. 6. Generation is overridden in the Croatian system by. the effects of (2), above in the terminological merging of aunts and particular uncles betwee; the first and second ascending generations. The empha- sis on particular lineal descent continues to be evident in Ego's gen- eration in the use of terms derived from the lexical roots of the terms for aunt and particular uncles for the collateral relatives of Ego's generation. Similar evidence of lineality is seen in the Serbian sys- tem in the less commonly used classes which denote the descendants of particular uncles and aunts as a group, and is also noted by Krauss. We may conclude that the mixed classification of uncles and aunts and the criterion of sex of the linking primary relative are basic to both systems, but that the greater emphasis on lineal descent in the Croatian system perpetuates their terminological results further in that system than in the Serbian. Lineality is not as extensive in the Serbian system, and the generational merging in that system does not occur in the Croatian, i.e.9 the logical exclusiveness of the two principles is manifest in the data. These distinctions are particular- ly clear on examination of Table II, where the classificatory principles have not been removed from the symbology by further reduction of the notations. calOranization Detailed information on the social organization of speakers of Serbo-Croatian is scarce in the literature, and the author has had no opportunity to undertake independent investigation of the subject. A brief suary of the salient features must sufficeo 62 The extended family, or zadruga, as a residence unit and corporate economic body, was widely distributed in Jugoslavia in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; its character and existence in more remote times is more a matter of conjecture than historically recorded fact. Its strength as a social institution began to wane in the nineteenth century under the influence of a number of factors, among which were the general influence and prestige of western European ideas and an increase in private property associated with, among other factors, a cash economy. These matters have been discussed at some length by Mosely (1940, 1953). The extended family has persited longer in the atea generally covered by our Serbian terminology than in that covered by the Croatian terminology. The right to use of real property and items of agricultural and domestic equipment was shared communally by the members of the extended fily and was inherited by successive resident members of the family. Since residence was usually patrilocal property would; be used commun- ally by a group of male agnates co'reaident in what was essentially a minimal lineage (women 4id not inherit permanent rights to property). One inherited the right to use of property equally with one's brothers and father's brother s sons, that property having been used equally by one's father and father's brother(s). The right to uae of this body of property was transmitted equally to ones own sons and one's bro- ther's sons in the next generation. Thus, complete equality in the use of property prevailed, being determined only by cotesidence in the extended family. Upon segmentation of an extended family, the division of the com- munal property was not on an equal basis by coresidence but was reck- oned by shares, generation by generation from the founder of the extended family to the lowest generation participating in the inheri- tance. Thus, if two brothers separated, they would share equally in their father's property. If one had a single son and the other two, and-these sons separated after the death of their fathers, one would retain half the property, being sole heir to his fatherYs half of the original body of property, and the other two would each retain one- fourth, being co-heirs to one-half of the original body of property. On the matter of residence, we may note that extended family organization of this sort may lead to coresidence of Fa, FaBr, FaBrSo, Br, So, BrSo, SoSo, and BrSoSo. After marriage, FaSi is not coresident. loBr-and MoSi are never coresident (12). That i, only members of the class RODBINA are present, and not all of them, since no tetki6i are present. The inheritance of names may be of some importance in these mat- ters. Names were applied to individuals more or less as necessary to distinguish any individual from any other. Within the family, first names were sufficient, unless there were two individuals Of the seae first name. In that case, they were distingulshed' by fitst name plus a patronymic. If it was necessary to distinguish two individuals with 63 the aame first names and patronyms, a patronymic derived from the first name of the paternal grandfather could be applied. The family itself had a name of morphologically patronymic form; it would appear that this was derived from the first name of the founder of the family. Further than this, every individual could use a patronym derived from the first name of the founder of his maximal lineage. That name is the one report- ed by Halpern (1956) as the name of the clan, or zailija, in modern rural Serbia and the one reported by Krauss (1885) as the name of the bratstvo, or sib, in the indefinite historical past. Modern Serbian usage acknowledges the first, or Christian, name and the "last name" only. The importance of the bratstvo lies in the recognition of maimal kinship by its members and by their possession of a common patron saint and saint's day celebration. The saint's day celebration (krsna slara) is held jointly by members of the br?tstvo when not prevented by other factors such as geographical distance, lack of social contact, enmity, etc. Women take the name of their husband's bratstvo in modern usage; the situation in the past is not clear. Relationship of Terminology and Social Structure If we may begin with an examination of the central characteristics of the Serbian and Croatian terminologies, the merging of aunts may correlate with the unimportance of these relatives in matters of resi- dence, property inheritance, and inheritance of the family name. MoSi is completely removed from a male Ego in these matters; FaSi may par- ticipate in the use of common domestic property before marriage, but is completely remov'ed after marriage. The position of a female Ego is similar, with some added features that w'ill be noted below. FaBr and MoBr may be separated in correlation with the same pattern of participation and non-participation in residence, use of property, and family name. While Fa and FaBr are linked in the use of comon property, the separation of Fa and FaBr is crucial in the inheritance of property on the division of an extended family. Mo and MoSi, on the other hand, are separate both terminologically and in residence. The apparent restriction of the term sinovac (BrSo, alternate for BRLTANAC. See Appendix II, endnote 7) to male speakers has some cor- relation with the communal use of property by a male's sons and his brother's sons. The term sinovac (BrSo) is lexically related to sin (So). Women, not having title or use of property in their own extended family after marriage, do not participate in a male's recognition of the semi-equivalence between So and BrSoo I find no specific correlates in social organization for the Serbian merging of lineals and collaterals along generational lines. One may present an historical explanation here, however. The merging of siblings with cousins of the same sex and generation occurs in Sanskrit, and there is possible evidence for it in Old Slavonic (Delbruck, 1889; Hammel, Ms.). Lineals and collaterals may have been 64 merged in the second ascending generation in Old Slavonic (Miklosich, 1862-65; Delbriuck, 1889; Hammel, Ms. Cf. the Russian term for uncle with the Serbian for grandfather and the O.S. root for these. Cf. also Latin aTus, avu s. The logically opposed criterion of emphasis on lineal descent-in the Croatian system may correlate with the earlier decline of the extended family in areas subject to greater Western influence and with the rise of private property in particular. Similarly, the Croatian distinction between own children and any sibling's children may correlate with inheritance of individual property along western European lines. The variation in informant's testimony on the use of the terms necak and ne6akinja in Serbia, as well as the lack of extension of these terms into the second descending generation in Serbia, may,, indicate that the terms are either replacing the BIATANAC-SESTRIC series or being replaced by them. The nature of the correlation of these terms with social factors has already been discussed; the remainder of the arguments on the matter are philological and are not directly germane to the present paper. If I may give a tentative conclusion without going into all the supporting arguments, I suspect that the term necak although old as a term of social reference in Indo-European, is of recent introduction into the Serbian kinship sys- tem as a term for Br/SiSo. As such, it maay well correlate with the decreasing importance of the patrilineage and greater emphasis on the nuclear family; note that it appears to be niore common in urban areas in Serbia. The other characteristics of the Serbian and Croatian systems are consistent within the systems themselves, i.e., they arise from the permutation of the basic characteristics, and require no explanation in terms of external factors. I am not prepared to consider any of the social features given as sufficient conditions for the terminological ones. That they are only necessary conditions is illustrated by the Gheg terminology in Appendix III, wherein the classifications of aunts and uncles is lineal but asso- ciated with a pattern of residence and property inheritance similar to the Serbian. Purther evidence in this regard is to be found in Anderson (Mts), in the association of similar social organization with bifurcate- collateral terminology. If the associational pattern is not disturbed by the occurrence of this terminology without contemporaneous or his- torical co-occurrence of the social organization described, the termin- ology may be regarded as a logically sufficient condition for the social organization. 65 Appendix I Serbo-Croatian Sources Source It Source II: Source III: Source IV: Source V: Hraste 1956. Male. Born in Dalmatia, resident in Yugoslavia until middle age. Urban. Female (two sisters). Born in Zagorje (Croatia), and resident there until adulthood. Rural. Male. Born in Serbia and resident there until adulthood. Urban, but from a large family. Halpern 1956. Grouped with II is another male Dalmatian. Grouped with IV are three other urban male Serbs and one natieve American male from a Serbian family. The data from Krauss, 1885, are of varied and indeterminate provenience, but seem to confirm Sources I and II, in large part. Durham's material (1928) confirms that of Source IV. Bibliographical items in addition to those listed above are: Bakoti6, 1936; Durham, 1928; Krauss, 1885; 1943, 1953. Lodge, 1941; Mosely, 1940, 66 Appendix II Alternate Terms Source I: baba = baka bratubed = stritevic. That is9 all persons descended from two brothers are "bratudedi." The term may be qualified by ordinal numerals, and is approximately equiv- alent to English "cousin of x degrees of removal," but in the data is listed as being only agnatic. ujac = ujak rodica = rodjakinja sinovka = sinovica necaka = necakinja bratanac = bratic = bratani? (listed for a female Ego only) sestridic` setri6 (listed for a female Ego only) Source II: Source III: stari stric = stric stari ujak = ujak stara tetka = tetka teta = tetka necak = bratanac = brati6 = sinovac (ne6ak was first choice) necakinja = sinovica (unsure on bratiEna, bratanica) necak = sestric necakinja = sestridina kei = cerka = k'erka starl stric = prastric = stric (the same equivalence is true for ujak and tetka) baba = baka = stara mama majka = mati = mama otac = tata stri6evika = stritilna teti6na = tetigna uj6evi6c = uj6ic bratic = stri6evic, tetic, uj ic bratiUna = stri6evi'cna, tetiEna, uji6ua sinovac is not used. bratanac = sinovac sestric = necak sestritina = necakinja bratanac = ne6ak ( bratanica = nec6akinja ( from a source merged with Source IV 67 Source IV: baba = nana (nana is more polite and is always used in GrMols presence or to address her) nana = majka (in some villages) bata = otac (usually as a term of address, always in villages) bata - young boy, among urban middle and upper class seka = young girl (usually in the vocative, seko) prapraded . dukunded praprababa - ukumbaba prapraunuk = Lukununuk prapraunuka = Yukuka Source V: majka = mama = mati otac = tata = ale k6i = k6erka 68 Appendix III Albanian Kinship Terms The terms listed here were drawn from Hahn (1854), Jokl (1923), Durham (1928) and the testimony of two northern Albanian informants. While the material is recorded here in the modern Albanian script, we must note that only those terms followed by the symbol (I) have reliable spelling. They were written by the informants. Jokl's recordings are certainly reliable, but they constitute such a small part of the list that their accuracy is of small importance for our limited purposes. Durham's terms are denoted by (D) where they differ notably from the others. The greatest uncertainty here lies with the author's transcriptions of Hahn's modified Greek script into the modern Latinic orthography. The transcriptions are suffi- ciently accurate to indicate differences between terms, but readers wishing to use them for further research are advised to consult Hahnts original list (9?. cit., Book Two, pp. 113-115) and his dis- cussion of phonetics and orthography (op. cit., Book Two, pp. 1-27). (/e/ is ute, and lengthens the vowel of the preceding syllable, as far as I can determine.) GrGrGrFa katragjysh (I) GrGrFa stergjysh katragjushi (D) (I) GrGrMo stergjyshe GrFa gjysh (I) FaF& gjysh (Tosc) GrMo gjyshe (Gheg) FaMo gjjshe (I) (Tosc) gjyshe"lja (Argyrokastron.) GrFa tate (Tosc) MoFa tate (Tosc) ape" (I) (See E1Br, Fa) MoMo joshe (Tosc) nanedaje (I) Fa baba 'tate jete te` (Old Ghe;) (See E1Br) lj&lje" (Tosc) 69 Fa (cont'd.) ape (I) - term of endearment (See MoFa) a6t (I) babe(I) n^ne (I) nenne (Tosc) me&nme (Tosc) em,e (Tosc) m6mme (Gheg) (See ninne (Gheg) (See djemte( Tosc) bijte (Gheg) ape (I) - term of bir (I) djale (.I) b*lje (Tosc) bije (Gheg) (I) vajze (I) vaiza eme (D) nipp nip (I) bir (I) bese (Tosc) mbese (Gheg) (I) ElSi) momme, nane) endearment (See Fa, E1Br, MoFa) vea vill4 (I) m6tre moter (I) Lte (Gheg - used to denote eldest brother when Fa is old) (See Fa) ape (I) - term of endearment (See Fa, Ch, MoFa) momme (Gheg - used to denote eldest sister when Mo is old, the term nanne then being applied to Mo instead of momme) nipp nip (I) bese (Tosc) mbese (Gheg) (I) ungj (Tosc) (I) dshadsha (Tosc) axhe (I) adah (D) mighe (D) nd4iho (Tose) nd4jo (Tosc) daje (I) 70 Mo Ch (pl) So Da GrSo GrDa Br si E1Br ElSi Ne Ni FaBr MoBr Un ungj (Gheg) dshadsha (Gheg) FaSi ha1lle (Tosc) halle (I) MoSi t4se (Tosc) teze (I) djeshe (D) Au jaje (Gheg) thjaje (in Berat) 4mte (in Premeti) lst Co kusheri (Tosc) (male) kusherin (Gheg) kushri (I) 1 st Co kusherire (Tosc) (female) kusherine (Gheg) kushrine (I) 2nd cous kusheri i duite, kusheir:re i duite. 3rd cous kushe*ri i trete, kusherire i trete*i GrNe sternip (I) GrGrSo ste*rnip (I) WYhile the author's acquaintance with Albanian is too cursory to allow him to attempt any detailed analysis, some points of interest are evident. First, the classification of relatives in the firstdascending generation is not of the #mixed" type, but is evidently lineal for the Gheg and bifurcate-collateral for the Tosc. Second, sex distinctions are usually made by changes in lexical root for near relatives and by changes in suffixation on the same root for more distant relatives. In this, Albanian is similar to Serbian except for the generations twice removed from Ego, where the Albanian situation is exactly the reverse of the Serbian one. Third, generation is overridden in Albanian in the merging of GrSo and Ne, GrGrSo and GrNe. This pattern is not found in Serbian, although it occurs in Italian (nepote) and appears to have occurred in other Indo-European languages (Lat., nePos; OHG, eninchil). Fourth, extension of terms through succeeding generations may be accom- plished by prefixation. Fifth, and a point of considerable interest, is the shifting of the term for Fa to Eldest Br, and of the term for Mo to Eldest Si, when the respective parents are no longer young. Hahn ( . cit., Book Two, p. 114 footnote) speculates on this situation as followsWith appropriate subjunctive caution): "1Sollte etwa die Gleichheit der Benennung fur Neffe und Enkel in so vielen Sprachen sich daraus erklaren, dass der Grossvater im Verhaltnis zu seinen Enkeln als der `ltere Bruder seines Sohnes angesehen wird?" The nature of the Albanian kinship system itself is of considerable interest, but adequate data are lacking for any thorough analysis. The 71 problem is further complicated by the uncertainty as to the philological relationships of Albanian and the nature and extent of linguistic and other cultural borrowing. We present these data here only as a point of terminological contrast to the Serbian system in a cultural matrix which is similar in many important respects. SO R CES: 1. Two male Albanians, one of whom was a primary informant, the other occasionally interjecting comments. The principal informant gave most of the terms in "Northern Albanian."- 2. Hahn, 1854. 3. Hasluck, 1954. 4. Jokl, 1923. 5. Durham, 1928. 72 NOTES (1) The author is indebted to many for their advice and criticism during the research which led to this paper: Martin A. XBaumhoff, Philip E. Mosely, Robert F. Murphy, Edward Norbeck, Julian A. Pitt-Rivers, John H. Rove, and David M. Schneider. He alone, however, is responsible for any errors of fact or interpretation which may occur. A particular note of thanks is due the infor- mants and those who assisted the author in the gathering of the data; without them the research would not hare been possible: Steve Boljanich, Dragomir Dimitrijevich, V. Andre Drignakovitch, Mrs. Jovan Eremia, Joseph Gera. Dragoslav Qeokgevichh Douglas Jeffreys, Ante ladi6, Michael Markh, Andre Simi6, Marin J. Stude, Dragisha Risti6, and J. M. Vesel. (2) Possible indications of social groupings found in the affinal terminology may lie in the use of the terms, zet (SiHu, DaHun) snaha (BrWis Slo9i). (3) The informant was in doubt here because of the MoBr link. (4) The terms for classes are my contractions for the Serbo-Croatian terms: brat od strica; brat od uaka, brat o od str, sestra od u,aka sestra od tetke. The general transla- tion for these is, 'Br/Si through Un/Au." (5) Infomant's first choice over alternates for SiSo, BrSo, SiDa, BrDa. (6) NECAK-NECAKINJA is absent in the rural Serbian terminology, is applied to SiSo-SiDa by two urban Serbian informants, and to SiSo-SiDa, BrSo-BrDa by only one of the urban Serbian informants. (7) Only one informant, merged with Source I, indicated that the alternate sinovac could be used by a woman for BrSo. He was a man. Source II, a woman, specifically denied it. (8) Krauss, 1885, also lists these terms for BrCh. Source II was unsure of this term. (9) Krauts, 1885, lists. sestri6i6, diminutive of sestri6, as SiSoSo. (10) Krauss, 1885, lists ujaYivi6 diminutive ofUI as MoBrSoSos and u.eii (= Eegi6 of Sources I II, and IIM) as MoBrSo, (11) Krauss, 1885 lists a ieveL6i as MoBrSoCh. (12) Kinship in the zad may be by adoption. 73 BIBLIOGRAPrH Anderson, Robert Thomas Ms. Changing kinship in Europe. Ph.D. dissertation, Univer- sity of California, Berkeley, California. June, 1956. 153 iva. Bakoti6c, Lujo 1936 Redanik srpskohrvatskog knjigevnog jezika. Belgrade. Delbriick, Berthold 1889 Die indogermanischen verwandtschaftsnamen. Ein beitrag zur vergleichenden altertumakande. Abhandlungen der philologisch-historiachen klasse der koniglich-aschsischen gesellschaft der irissenschaften. Band XI. No. V. Leipzig. Durham, M. Edith 1928 Some tribal origins, laws, and customs of the Balkans. London. Hahn, Johann Georg von 1854 Albanesische studien. Jena. Halpern, Joel M. 1956 Social and cultural change in a Serbian village. Pre- publication monograph, HRF-25, Halpern-l. Human Rela- tions Area Files, Inc., New Haven. Hamnel, E. A. Ms. Notes on old slavonic kinship terminology. Hasluck, Margaret M. 1954 The unwritten law in Albania. Cambridge. Hraste, Mate 1956 Nazivi za rodbinu i svojtu. Jezik: Uasopis za kulturu hrvatskoga knjiievnog jezika. Izdaje hrvatako filologko drugtvo. Br. 1, (Godigte V. pp. 1-4. Zagreb. 74 Jokl, Norbert 1923 Linguistisch-kulturhistorische untersuchungen aus dem bereiche des albanischen. Berlin u. Leipzig. Krauss, F. S. 1885 Sitte und brauch der siudslawen. Wien. Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1956 A semantic analysis of Pawnee kinship usage. Language, 32:1:158-194. Miklosich, Franz, ritter von 1862-65 Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum emendatum auctum edidit. Vindobonae. Mosely, Philip E. 1940 The peasant family: the zadruga, or communal joint- family in the Balkans, and its recent evolution. In The cultural approach to history, Caroline F. Ware, ed., New York, pp. 95-108. 1943 Adaptation for survival; the VarYit zadruga. Slavonic and East European Review, xxi, pt. 1, March, pp. 147-173. 1953 The distribution of the zadruga within southeastern Europe. In The Joshua Starr Memorial Volume, Jewish Social Studies, Publication"No. 5, New York, pp. 219- 230. 75 .- a