Syntax overview at units ’ level : Syntagma , sentence , phrase , and some correlations with the order of Greek-Albanian constituents in Th . Mitko ’ s Phrase Book

In the article “Syntax overview at units’ level: Syntagma, sentence, phrase, and some correlations with the order of their Greek-Albanian constituents in the tri-lingual Talking Dictionary of Th. Mitko”, the author, pedagogue of the Modern Greek Language in the University of Tirana, dr. Elvis Bramo, brings the level of the language as the main topic of this research, that is the syntactical level, starting from the syntagma unit (as a building unit), different types of sentences, some phrases with predicative components, and some bilingual segments: Albanian-Greek, to identify several peculiarities of word order. This comparative study between the two languages ( the Talking Dictionary has been compiled in three languages) aims at achieving some partial conclusions about the construction of the syntagma, their types as far as syntax connecting ways are concerned, and the valences that merge them into classes of words; It aims to identify the types of sentences with the grammatical elements of the question, with question words, with the denial grammatical tools, as well as the characteristics of the verbs as the heart of the syntatical organization in the communicated unit-phrase. Regarding the phrase (period), dr. Bramo has pointed out the relationship of the phrasal components merging, their functioning together with their thematic and rematic role, on the basis of the Prague School. The language research from this viewpoint of Th.Mitko’s work, one of the most famous Albanian folklorists, has also brought in a comparable plan some models of syntactical phrasal and compound structures, to show that although the Greek and the Albanian languages are natural languages with a free word order (SVO), they do have parametric changes regarding the consituent parts of the sentence, particularly in the connoted constructions.


Introduction
Thimi Mitko has without doubt been among the first elaborators of the Albanian language, not simply beacuse he joined the early collectors of folk oral creativity, otherwise known as a precious national treasory of the mother tongue, but above all, for being part of the heritage with his authentic lexicographic works, such as the Tri-lingual Talking Dictionary, prepared and published two years ago.1 For his contribution not only in folklore, but also in the Albanian language, particularly in the field of lexicography, the scholars have classified him in that group of writers called the southern orthodox district, 2 who have used the Greek alphabet.
With the reprinting of his main work "The albanian bee" in 1924, in Vienna, by dr.Gjergj Pekmezi, Mitko's name became futher known among the foreign Albanologists, who have also made him a subject of recognition and study.Suffice to mention here the high appreciation of the great renaissance man, Jeronim de Rada, who was among the first Arbëresh that got acquainted with his work, and published it in his newspaper, Fiamuri i Arbërit; (Arber's flag); saying that the collector of "The albanian bee" had realized that un popolo non può uscire dalla barbaria se non coltivando la lingua a sè nativa... 3 A nation can not throw off the barbarian yoke, unless it cultivates the native tongue ... Albanian historians have asserted that the Italian-Greek-Albanian Tri-lingual Dictionary of Mitko has come to serve as an approaching, cooperation and friendship means between Albanians, Greeks and Italians, as an important means of cultural, commercial, scientific cooperation among the people. 1 We think that the second part of the summary we have selected, leaves room for an analysis or presentation of the syntactical viewpoint of the lexical inflows from the syntagmatic to the sentence and phrase structure level, as well as the conversational level, Mitko brought 130 years ago.The three-collecting-work-decades, just like bees collecting nectar, have focused mainly on the author's contacts with the Tosk and Geg emigrants who worked and lived in Egypt and elsewhere, relying not only on the lexicon of the spoken language of the common people, but also on the lexicon obtained from the written language. 2lklore researchers and Albanian literary historians have come to the conclusion that Mitko's broad creativity, to this day, has been quite scattered, better say uncollected, because they can probably be found in the form of manuscripts at the descendants of his heirs in Egypt.On the other hand, since 1981 when Mitko's work was published, it has been claimed that this outstanding folklorist has also left an Albanian-Greek dictionary, a manuscript (with about a thousand words), which is not the subject of our article.

A.
The valence and syntax: In this linguistic research on Mitko's Talking Dictionary, we are focusing simply on the syntactical viewpoint of the language used by the author almost a century and a half ago, to investigate several picularities of this discipline, especially in the syntactic unions of concrete units, such as the "syntax", a construction element for the sentence throughout the process of communication.Studying these units in spoken language through "sentences", will help us judge upon their structures, the ways of union according to their components, and the syntactical connecting means used here.
In addition to the character of the connections and relations of the syntagmatic components, a special significance is attached to the valence indicator, 3 belonging not only to the verbal syntax (VS), but also to those with heads or components of other classes of words, such as nouns, adjectives, numerals, pronouns and adverbs. 4During this analysis we have tried to see: structure, order, the distinction between the topic (old information) and the comment (new information), the tools of syntetical connection, etc., according to the structural school data, which can be integrated into the theory and practice of the Albanian language.And this is the verbs' velancy, a very important achievement of the Prague School, which has been raised in theory by the French linguist of this trend in linguistics, Lucien Tesnière since 1959. 5The author is also called the father of modern dependency grammar. 6The models of this theory, which see the verb as the syntax center of the phrase (here: the sentence), were born in the European structuralist circle, more precisely in the French one, thanks to the achievements of the linguist L. Tesnière (1893-1954): a student of the well-known linguist Charles Bally and member of Prague linguistic circle.The act of this model eruption since its first steps to its formulation, seems to be fixed at the same time as the publication day of the work "Éléments de Syntaxe strukturale" (Structural Syntax Elements).It has been determined for some time in theoretical linguistics that besides the verbs, for valency there should be talked about other classes and other denominations. 7The famous Italian generativist, G.Graffi, stresses out that nouns as well as verbs, show valency but with some changes, not strange enough, because many nouns derive from verbs (and consequently they are called "verbal nouns" ), for example, (ndriçim) lightening derives from verb ndriçoj(light), lexim (reading) from the verb lexoj (read) etj.1 etc.
It must be pointed out here that the main aim and the linguistic situations which the communication units of the folklorist's Talking Dictionary are based on, are quite diverse, such as: begging or request, thanking, home conversation, before bedtime, dressing, conversation between the lecturer and the maid, discussions on age, life and death, lunches, dinners, invitations, walks, weather forcast, time indicators, weather, times of year, school, visits, rites of baptism, wedding, talking with the sick , the doctor, conversations among craftsmen, the contents of the letter, conversation at the bookstore, orientation questions, exchanges, fishing, hunting talks, meetings, and other linguistic situations.
The possibility of grammatical connection in the linguistic plan, is conditional on the valence of the parts of speech, a fact that draws attention to what is called dichotomy "language-utterance", the noun should be related to the nouns of different cases, with adjectives, with some pronouns, numbers, etc; while the verbs should be joined by nouns, adverbs, infinitives , etc.In all the studied cases, the synctatic connecting means between the building units, called the syntagma, in Mitko's Talking Dictionary, are firstly the prepositions, the suffixes, synctatical order, which rarely comes according to the nature of the Albanian language, due to the influence of the foreign languages the author was oblidged to use during the long years of emigration; So there are many building models "adjective + noun" (beautiful woman, another time, first job, very hot, etc.) The same goes even for the mediated construction of predicates with analytical verbs, such as: ...nuk do të rrinja, sepse kishnja pra dhënë fjalën tim-kuneti..

.( I would not stay, since I gave the word to my brother in law)
. As for the level of the syntagmatic combinations, the frequent usage of the dative case without preposition, such as meeting friends, prepositions of the accussative case: " mbë" -on" and " ndë -in": do ta shihni mbë kishë(You will see him at church) ndë meshë( at the Mass/liturgical ritual), e pashë ndë treg(I saw her in the bazaar), ndala mbë këtë(I stopped a while on it), takuash mbë dialëthin( I met the boy)etc.

B. Sentence level:
First of all, we have to point out that in the Mitko's Talking Dictionary; almost all types of predicate units defined by the Albanian syntax are generated1 from the declarative sentences to the exclamatory, imperative, and interrogative-dialogic ones, as called in such cases.

For instance: Më bëtë me këtë shumë detyarë (Grateful to you), Jeni shumë i fismë( You are noble). Ju dua me gjithë zemërë( I love you with all my heart). Epni më bukë( Give me sth to eat). Siellëni më një boce me verë të kuqe( Bring me a pot of red wine) Le të lëmë kajdet (Let the bagpipes play). Mos harroni të më vini nga herë ndë shtëpi( Don't forget to see me sometimes). Lini më të bënj unë (Let me do it).. Thoni të fala nga unë zotit atit tuajë (My regards to your father). Kopsitnim!...(button my blouse). Pastroni krëhënjët tuajë (Clean the combs). Shëndet paç zot. (Bless you).U gdhifsij shëndoshë( Have a good night sleep). Mirë paçi (All the best to you). Mirë qofsij( Wishing you all the best) Fort mirë, ju paça..(Wishing you well!)
We have also come to the conclusion that these types of sentences emerge according to the nature of the Albanian language, without a subject, as a single sentence, and according to a certain order depending on the statement or intonation of the phrase, mainly with verbs at the beginning of the sentence.The interrogative sentences turn out to be the richest in construction and corresponding grammatical tools, since their function during utterance is the most important.Thus, we find in the Dictionary first of all the so-called interrogative sentences having a parallel structure with the declarative sentences, defined as such only through interrogative intonation, not through interrogative grammatical tools, such as pronouns, particles or interrogative adverbs, for instance: We also notice here and there the use of interrogative grammatical tools, not at the beginning, as it usually happens in these types of sentences, but also in the end of it several times using particles, but also carrying an expressive value when these tools emerge in the middle of the sentence, creating a middle pause in the sentence intonation, to attract the attention of the listener, such as: Kushëriri juajë a u kthye nga Parisi?(Did your cousin return from Paris? ) In this presentation we also encounter phrase structures that include indirect interrogative sentences, which are present in the pradigmatic group model p.g.m but in such constructions they have lost the corresponding intonation of the question, such as:

Pa më thoni, a dini ndë erth vapor'i Trieshtës.( Could you tell me,whether the Trieste ship comeor not), Ju merni vesht fort mirë se ç'ju flas unë.(You know quite well what I am talking about), S'marr vesht aspak ç'thot ay.(I can't understand what he is talking about). Nukë dini se ç'orë është.(You don't know what time is it).
In our lexical studies it is emphasized that the lexicographic treatment of word attachments should profoundly apply the theory of utterance activity in order to be appropriate, in line with the linguistic requirements. 1The linguist H.Shehu points out that for issues such as these dictionaries there are well-known criteria, ie a).density of speech; B) thematic and situation values of speech; C) the breadth of the lexical-syntagmatic links of the word with other words of the language, taking into consideration the extra-linguistical factors, the object-logic and the inter-linuistic factors, including even the structure of the language itself ..;1 .Through these we can make out the mergers according to the features of our language, not only in the syntax, but also in the whole sentence structure, to reach the required level of communication.

Phrase construcion
Even if we don't have the text structures for the linguistic heritage of Mitko, we are able to describe the constructions in phrases with two or more predicate elements, and we can speak about their nature, as it is usually said about a language, in terms of this level which has become the topic of our writing.In the formal and functional analysis of the phrases, first of all, a building method on the base of the components has been ascertained: the direct structure and the indirect structure.
The following model, from the Talking Dictionary , Jo, unë nukë pasëdrekem kurrë, përse drekem mesëditet; (No, I never have snack, because I have lunch); comes with a direct construction, since the phrase begins with a leading prediction unit and is followed by a subordinate.But the structure, Tek është mjeshtëri i valles, ecni e kërceni;(Come and dance where the master of dance is), is a phrase that comes from an indirect construction,2 used in a given has two SOC-s (syntax organization centers), placed behind a subordinate predicate unit; or:

Ndë doni t'a shihëni, ejani nesërë mbë dy, kur ne do t'a kemi për drekë;( If you want, come tomorrow at two, when we have lunch)
, where the leading unit lies between two sub-units.In today's syntactic studies, the functional syntax analysis should be treated up to the schematic presentation of the components, because, according to psycholinguists, the thought patterns turn out to be embodied in the language schemes. 3If we look for the coupling according to the principle of hierarchical linkage "main clause / subordinate clause", we sketch the following sentence as follows: Të dinja se ishit për të ardhurë, do të kisha porositur të gatuanin gjegjë më tepërë.(HadI known you were coming, I would have ordered more food).
Still staying at the level of the phrase (period), we first affirm here that, in the Mitko's Talking Dictionary, sentence-units do predominate -as basis for conversational discourse in human activity, but there are several cases when the utterancephrases structures come as a combination with parataxis (in a few types, according to connectors), and with hypotaxis, focusing on some functional relationships, such as the determinative, time, conditional, consecutive and few others.
Secondly, the means of linking the predicate elements in the phrase are mostly those of the conversational prose and popular discourse.Thirdly, phrases and compound combinations with zero linking means are present as well, such as the one without synctactic connectivity tools known in syntax.For example, in the sentence: Ju lutem,

mos ndërejtëroni fjalët tuaja, të sillemi si miq, e pa kajde, e pa pajka
We notice missing links or conjunctions or correlates, but such a role is played by the pauses and the order of the components.It happens that in Mitko's Talking Dictionary, we find a wider structure than two predicate constituent units, but with 3 or more, where different functions appear, as in the following example: "Ndë është kështu, do të ha me të madhe shije, përse m'a k'anda shumë mishin e kaut të piekurë.""If it's true, I will take great pleasure in eating roast beef as I like it)."Here, the synctactic relations, in addition to meaning, have also the visual grammar indicator, the conditional link"ndë" (if), which also marks the type of the phrase having an indirect construction, while the functions are: conditional, leading and causative.
It must be underlined that the generation of the predicative components in succession or with a dependency hierarchy in the indirect structures is more possible.These constructions are quite dense in the Dictionary we are considering and we find double-phrase constructions, linked with subordinating connectives, depending on the determination of the relations such as: There are cases in Mitko's Talking Dictionary when subordinating and coordinating clauses are merged, as in the following two constructions, which can be presented in the following scheme: O dialë, shpierë letrën e zotit ndë postët, //edhe mos harronjësh //t'i paguanjësh harxhin.
Sometimes the phrase becomes complicated with more than 2-3 predicate elements, united in syndetic and asyndetic way, as in the examples we have found in different linguistic situations, selected by the author:.
Nuku kënaqem aspak me të piekura kaqë të shkurtëra, ju shoh fort mbë të rrallë, pa përandaj duhet të më zgjatni kënaqien që ndienj nga të ardhurit tuaj.(I am sad, to see you so seldom,that's why it gives me great pleasure if you come.)In Mitko's Talking Dictionary we can also find substructural construcitons: Ej zot, e mësonj, //po këjo gjuhë, //sado e vëjejçime që është,//nuk'është pas modës.(OhMy God, I do study//although interesting// this language is archaic//.)Të kënduarit e Anglishtes është kaqë të fështirë, //sa nukë mund të nxini //të këndoni mirë as mbë dhietë viete.(Reading English is so difficult//that you can't assimilate it //read well even after 10 years.) The following phrases as well, have a structure according to the nature of our language, with ordinary tools of the folk syntax, despite the indirect constructions: In Mitko's talks we notice that the means of connection used between the predicate components are the same from the phonetic viewpoint, but the units that follow them are functionally different, as in the following construction: Nuk rri afërë ziarrit, //se kam frikë //se mos nxehem shumë.(Ican't stay close to the fire//I'm afraid//I am too hot.)Symetricconstructions of the components can be found in Mitko's talking phrases, such as: M'u duk/ se e pash //të shkonjë parëdie,// po nukë munda t'e mbesonj, //pasij s'më kishnit thënë gjë për këtë.(Iguess//I saw him leaving a day before yesterday//but I couldn't believe// since I was not told about that.) You can also find although rarely, conversational vocabulary phrases, arising as complicated constructions, may be due to the influence of the foreign languages, as in the following period, with 3 centers of syntactical organization, with 3 SOC-s (syntax organization centers).
Nuk mungojnë, në të rrallë, edhe fraza të fjalorit bisedor, të cilat dalin me ndërtime të rënduara, mbase edhe nga ndikimi i gjuhëve të huaja, si në periudhën e mëposhtme, me This issue could be fully treated in this article, if only we had bilingual texts: Albanian-Greek or vice-versa, in order to achieve a correlative visual representation between the components.For this, as well as for the patterns brought to the review of phrase units, we should focus on the anastatic text of the Talking Dictionary, which is similar to today's bilingual guides, likewise to compare selected segments of the clauses' order.It is important to also bring here today's linguistic theory data, where several terms of characteristic features are used on the basis of potency in special languages.
In the translation process, language is used in a variety of situations, always allowing a formulation passing from-the source language -to the target language, of course, provided that the specific phonetic and rhythmic phenomena or the source semantic and syntactic peculiarities are abandoned.1Furthermore, we get to know that whoever is familiar with several languages or with the theory of translation, is aware of the fact that it is often not easy to find the equivalents of a formulation from the source language to the target language.It is highly suggestive to look for the equivalent in the target language and it is so fascinating to notice some common traces found by the speakers of different languages separately which help expand their semantic heritage, but this suggestion and enchantment depend precisely on the fact that in every language, the speakers proceed in their own way (suo iure) to expand, build and rebuild their semantic heritage, and this constantly leads to the lexicon distance among themselves."And it is precisely this -writes De Mauro -in the history of languages that we focus on important borrowings from one language to another, which prove to be a short the way, in terms of the translation.(Go and buy some fish, but make sure it's fresh.)

* * *
What we notice from these functional clauses correlations and their topicality within the parallel structures, in the introduced units for the characterization of the languages used here, we need to use the adjectives potent and impotent in all their uses, but even with an implication, using their special meaning.
Then, we come to the definition that the semantic potency of a code is the number of markers it can distinguish within its noesis (perception) field. 1 Based on this notion, some theoretical approaches call this relevance of the languages we have spoken about, as semantic omnipotence or semiotic.It is worth focusing on the explanation of the term potency.De Mauro gives the following explanations: -A language, that is able to welcome all the meanings of the phrases of another language , is equipotent (equivalent); it is precisely, in their diversity, that the languages may be equipotent among them, through the enrichment, the extension of the lexicon or the definition of meanings, etc. ----------If a language is able not only to contain the meanings of another one, but to describe the syntax and structures, it is more than equipotent, it is more potent.
-A language that is able to be more potent than another one is metalinguaggio 2 and the other language is an objective language. 3turally, among the researches of linguistic theories, one may ask: Regarding these few correlations ,which of these two languages we approached is more potent, Greek or Albanian, or are they both equipotente ?The answer would require an in-depth research, because we can not rely neither only the archaic approaches, nor on the written documentary tradition, nor on the lexical wealth, nor on the syntactic structures, since this particular relevance, is a natural quality of every human 1 Metagjuhë metalanguage: in logic and in the theory of formal languages, the term "metalinguiaggio" means a formally defined language that is intended to define other artificial languages, which are referred to as objective language or object language (in the SGML districts of XML -the term "application" is also used).As for the SGML character symbols, we provide information technology: Standardized Generalized Markup Language -it is a metalanguage, defined as the ISO standard (ISO 8879: 1986 SGML), and intends to determine the languages used in draft of the texts intended for transmission and archiving with information instruments -in computer readable form.But the Middle Ages wise men show that they have perceived something more, that is, that in spontaneous -informal uses -a language can also perform even its own metalinguistic function.Thus, the metalinguistic communication is one that has the object of language in itself.