A reply to Yaron Matras
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3933
Risposta a Yaron Matras.
application/pdf
2239-625X
3933
2
en
Leonardo Piasere
Anuac
A reply to Yaron Matras
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac
8
Rejoinders
2019-12-29
2019-12-12
2019-12-29
2019-12-29
113-124
1
Leonardo Piasere
2019/12/29
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3933
113
Università di Verona, Italy
2239-625X
2
en
124
A reply to Yaron Matras
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac/article/download/3933/3555
8
                                        2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124




                                                                           REJOINDERS

A reply to Yaron Matras
Leonardo PIASERE
Università di Verona


Rejoinder to Yaron MATRAS, Romani self-appellations in a linguistic perspective: A reply to
Leonardo Piasere, ANUAC, Vol. 8, n° 2, dicembre 2019: 105-112.




   When a scholar wants to communicate with other scholars, who are not
part of his/her study field, because he/she knows that they are, in any case,
asserting important things, it is a risk because this attempt at communication
may be misguided and things may be said that, to their others’ expert ears,
could sound trivial or inexact. On the other hand, he/she also runs the risk of
impinging on epistemological sensitivities among colleagues from his/her
own disciplinary sector if they are not accustomed to using alien, or
considered obsolete, methodologies (as in the case of my article, which has a
“quasi-diffusionist” style: a methodology that has not been used for decades
in social anthropology but which is still used in dialectology). I do believe,
however, that this risk should be taken when scholars from different
disciplines are dealing with the same topic but putting different skills into
play. I would therefore like to thank Yaron Matras for his general
considerations on my article, for his reply to some doubts I had and also for
his kindness in not insisting too much on my amatorial and almost totally
incompetent skills in the field of general linguistics and Romani linguistics
in particular.



This work is licensed under the Creative Commons © Leonardo Piasere
A reply to Yaron Matras
2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124.
ISSN: 2239-625X - DOI: 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3933
114                                                                     LEONARDO PIASERE


   Before answering his reply, I would like to briefly outline the limitations
of my article. I have tried to locate the sources in which the autonyms of the
collectives appear for the first time in Romanes1 in the various parts of
Europe and I am aware that other sources I missed may exist. I have only
used printed sources written in the Latin alphabet; the research should be
therefore completed considering texts in other alphabets (Cyrillic, Greek,
Armenian, Georgian, Arabic...). The reports that I uncovered either come
from archived materials (always published by a different author than the
person who produced the manuscript) or from direct contacts (oral
interactions) from an author with Romanes speakers. Neither of the two
cases guarantees that the information is the total “truth”, due to questions
that have been debated a thousand times (by historians on the interpretation
of archived sources; by social anthropologists and linguists on the use of re-
written oral sources; by Romani study scholars regarding the problems of
relations between “Gypsies” and “non Gypsies” reflecting on text
production; by scholars from many fields in regard to the hermeneutic
problems that arise when individual facts are grouped in a comparison that
necessarily decontextualizes them from the environment and the author
that produced them). For all these reasons, and many more, the title of the
article refers to a simple desire to “contribute to”: “Pour une histoire...”.
This kind of study can only base itself on a circumstantial paradigm
(Ginzburg 1979), given that, in a written literature where the people are
mainly denoted by exonyms, as Matras (2019) well explains, the autonyms
become the symptomatic indications of alternative semantics, in action
between the speakers but encrypted in print. As soon as a study involves
names, the philological work of linguists and the chronology of the
documents become important. Obviously, information is not “good” in itself
just because it appears in a text, ancient or new as it may be, and every
quotation should be assessed starting with an exegesis of each individual
source (on-line sources as well now). It is a well-known problem for those
who take an interest in writings (Destro and Pesce 1995: XIII). We are not
always lucky enough to have all of this and my article is also lacking from
this point of view. It is exactly because I was sometimes not able to find the
answers I was looking for from linguists (perhaps I was looking in the wrong
places?) that I raised doubts in my article rather than disagreements.

1. For reasons that I will not go into here, I prefer to use “Romanes” instead of “Romani”
when I refer to the language. The term can be accented in various ways according to the
dialect: I have not included accents here, unlike in the previous text in French (Piasere
2019) in which “Romanès” is only intended to be a functional spelling so as not to mislead
any French-speaking readers who are less familiar with Romani vocabulary.


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124
A REPLY TO YARON MATRAS                                                                      115


   While I find some of the explanations in the Matras’s reply convincing, I
cannot find the solution to all my doubts. My research has confirmed and
reinforced the result of his previous studies: there is a pool of autonyms
(Rom, Manuš, Kale, Romaničel) historically shared among those which, in
Europe, are called with various exonyms (Gypsies, Egyptians, etc.). They are
made up of names which, besides being a collective autonym, also have
another original meaning (“man”, “member of the in-group”, “black”); only
Romaničel seems to be a pure autonym. The etymology of all these would
suggest the existence of a “pre-European pool or etymological sources of
self-appellations, one that pre-dated the formation of regional dialects of
Romani in Europe”, as Matras writes (2019). The problem of the word Sinto
remains (m. pl. Sinti or Sinte2). Is it a pure autonym (as in the case of
Romaničel) or does it derive from a previous meaning (as in the case of Rom,
Manuš and Kale)? From the point of view of general reasoning, the fact is
inessential: the volatility of autonyms, the flexibility of social organization
and the “jeu romanès” (Williams 1988), leave plenty of room for introducing
new or restructured names3. It should, however, be pointed out that, to my
knowledge, it is the only case, in groups that continue to speak Romanes, of
such a radical innovation seeing that it involved the main autonym and not a
sub-autonym (as often happened in the Balkans, where the main name is
still Rom). Instead, from the viewpoint of the particular history, the topic
could be important or, in any case, worthy of attracting the curiosity of the
researcher interested in the “inside” history. I would point out that the
etymology of the term Sinte/-i is still unknown, even if, in the last two
centuries, eminent linguists have made attempts at tracing it back to
lemmas of either Indian, Greek or German origin4.

2. Also on the basis of my personal knowledge, the plural is either Sinti or Sinte, as Matras
specifies. In French literature, the term always appears as Sinté, and it is true that it is often
hard to understand whether it is a “Frenchification” of the author’s pronunciation or of that
of the native speakers themselves. I conformed to that spelling in my French article and
have no problem with dropping it here.
3. Marushiakova (1992) already showed how the situation in Bulgaria had changed in
relation to the study by Gilliat-Smith (1915-16). The disappearance within a century of the
Šinte rosengre, or at least of the name, is just as emblematic in Italy (Piasere 1986). On the
other hand, I am not sure if the “segmentation vs. consolidation” process of Roma groups
that Marushiakova & Popov (2004) brought to light in the ex-Soviet context in the last
century can generally be transferred to the Roma history in the medieval and modern
period, as the authors seem to suggest. Neither is this the place to open the debate of
whether the Roma society in the Balkans has a “caste-like social structure”, as Matras writes
(2019) – something that many social anthropologists would have a lot to object to.
4. I have only just realised now, due to this reply, that Pott (1844, I: 34) had also already
touched upon the Germanic gesinde etc. in his various etymological hypotheses, just as I, in
my lack of expertise, did (Piasere 2019: 110).

                                          2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124
116                                                               LEONARDO PIASERE


   As he had already explained in previous publications, and reaffirms,
Matras states that the term Sinte began to assert itself from the 18th century
in German regions among populations that previously used the autonym
Kale. For my part, I have tried to show that, in German-speaking regions, the
autonyms Kale and Romaničel, which had been used at least up until the
beginning of the 20 century by groups who were also called Sinti/-e or who
                        th


spoke dialects that can still be referred to the Sinti/-e today, were effectively
listed. The fact must be seen as a linguistic shift from one term to another,
Matras explains, rather than of the replacement of one population group to
another. In the understanding that we agree on the basic reading, when does
the linguistic explanation alone still seem insufficient to me?
   1. I find the clarification that the etymology of Sinte cannot be re-
capitulated by any Indian voice decisive, and I thank Matras for the detailed
explanation, seeing that I personally continued to consider it a possibility. If
this is true, I also find it interesting that, in the Romanes of the Sinte/-i, the
term Sinte/-i has taken on the normal declination into Sintes-/Sinten-. The
Sinten- form has been attested since the first document that shows its
declination (Biester 1793: 366), as well as in todayʼs Sinte/-i dialects, at least
in those that decline the name (see, for example Tauber, 2006: 17, 67, etc.).
T h e Sintos-/Sinton- form, of which Matras speaks, can be found in other
Romanes dialects, like that of the Kalderaš Roma (as he himself explained
1999: 110), for whom the term is effectively foreign (on the other hand, the
Kalderaš Roma consider the Sinti almost as Gažé: see Williams 1984).
   2. It is true that the term can only be found in Sinte/-i dialects. And it is
also true that these dialects share the same set of linguistic characteristics,
listed by Matras, that distinguish them from other Romanes dialects. Since I
am not an expert, however, I will feel much happier when linguists finally
explain the etymology of the word (its history), and when they better explain
the position in some ways borderline of the dialects of the so-called Italian
Sinti (Sinti italiani). Giulio Soravia (1977) has shown that these dialects have
differences from those that, also present in Italy, are usually labelled as
German Sinti (Gačkane, Estraixaria, Krasaria, etc.; the Romanian and Serbian
Sinti cited by Matras can also linguistically be considered to number among
the latter). Italian Sinti speak dialects that are much less influenced by
German on a lexical level, which would lead to thinking about a migration
from German-speaking countries (large?) prior to that of the German Sinti,
who apparently only arrived at end of the 1800s. In particular, compared to
other dialects (including that of their Lombard Sinti neighbours), the
Romanes spoken by Piedmontese Sinti families (Sinti pimontákeri), who now
live here and there in northern Italy and France, and mainly along the coast

2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124
A REPLY TO YARON MATRAS                                                                       117


from Rome to Marseilles, has several peculiarities: it has well-maintained a
stressed inflectional ending, as well as the s in the alternation with h (which
often becomes ø); the jotation in the simple past is not always present; the
vocabulary has a much lower number of Germanisms; and there are
archaisms that are not found in other Sinti dialects (see Partisani 1972;
Soravia 1977: 51-59; Senzera 1986; Formoso and Calvet 1987; Piasere, 1991,
1996, 2017)5.
   3. I reiterate the case of the Piedmontese Sinti because it allows me to
question the chronology of the dissemination of the term Sinte/-i.
Acknowledging that it emerged as an autonym among groups circulating in
the German-speaking areas, if it were true that it only appeared in the 18 th
century, as Matras suggests, the speed of its dissemination would, however,
have been considerably fast. I would point out that the first two printed
attesting documents were found at the two extremes of the German world, in
the north-east and the south-west: in 17846 in eastern Prussia and in 1787 in
Württemberg. The first text that we know of in Piedmontese Sinti Romanes
consists of a tale heard and transcribed by Bataillard in Cannes in 1850, told
by a family that was circulating near the western Alps, between southern
France, the Savoy dominions and Switzerland (see Winstedt 1910)7. The
woman telling the story had been born in 1793 or 1794 in the department of
Ain. Her father had been born in Dauphiné, we can assume around 1770. The
group, however, had recently arrived in Cannes from the outskirts of Turin.

5. I would add that, compared to other Sinti, where marriage with the consensual elopement
of the betrothed prevails, it would seem that the Piedmontese Sinti often also foresee the
marriage request (mangipen), with elopement only as an alternative modality, as happens in
many Rom and Gitanos groups (see Piasere 2015). Mangipen is not a recent innovation. Its
existence was already affirmed in a tale recorded in France in the mid-1800s (see Winstedt,
1910: 249); in one community in Grenoble it is now called demandement (Brot 2004: 89-94).
6. I persist with this document which Matras, for reasons he does not explain, does not take
into consideration, not even in his reply. It is perhaps the most famous and cited manuscript
in the history of Romani Studies, although, to date, nobody has ever thought to publish it in
its entirety. It is a report of a field research carried out in 1784 by one of Kant’s students, the
philosopher Christian Jakob Kraus, in Könisberg (now Kaliningrad) and the surrounding
area. The linguistic materials of the study were collected by Father Zippel, a protestant
minister who had been associating with a community of Sinte in the area for some time. The
report was partially published only in 1793 and, on Kraus’ own request, signed by Johann
Erich Biester, the editor of the journal in which it appeared. The matter is being increasingly
studied but the only version available is still the one published by Biester (re-printed in
2014): see at least Pott 1844; Röttgers 1993 and 2018; Bense 2004; Tauber 2014; Kronauer
2014.
7. In the previous article (Piasere 2019), I gave 1867 as the first year in which the term Sinti
was recorded in France, on the basis of another publication by Bataillard. Since the term
often appears in the text published by Winstedt, I have to bring that date forward to 1850.

                                           2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124
118                                                                          LEONARDO PIASERE


In the narration, the term Sinti is mentioned so often (even with the
meaning of “relatives”) that it would be a long-shot to say that it was a
recent acquisition. Historical and genealogical studies on Piedmontese Sinti
in France (Robert 2004; Brot 2004) invariably show networks of families that
share a story of coming from Savoy regions. I do not know how wrong I am in
affirming that, in 1787 (the date from which Matras starts), the term Sinte/-i
was already present as an autonym in a region that stretched from the Côte
d’Azur and Piedmont to Eastern Prussia. When Piedmontese Sinti met the
German Manuš in France in the late 1800s, there were already two “groups”
with rather different pasts. I suspect that the term Sinte/-i, among the Sinte/-
i, simply had a historical profoundness that goes beyond the 1700s and that
the history is extremely articulate8. Moreover, was Sinte/-i their only
autonym? We know that Romanišel/Romaničel must have been well present
in France, but we have little proof of its “internal” use. Robert (2004: 34)
suspects that the Saintonge Romanitchel of which Bataillard spoke (1867;
and that I mentioned: Piasere 2019) were the Michelets, a network of
families that, already in the 1800s, were also known as Piedmontese Sinti. On
the other hand, Romanišel has not disappeared altogether and we can find it
still in use today in a community in Grenoble where, it would seem, the term
denotes those Voyageurs who are neither Gitans, nor Sinti (Brot 2004: 91).
    4. The history of the Grenoble community studied by Annabel Brot (2004)
helps us in another consideration. The members of the group tend to define
themselves only as Gitans when there is no need for a more specific
explanation. These Gitans descend from Piedmontese Sinti and Catalan
Gitans circulating in south-east France who, in the last seven generations,
have joined into one strict endogamy. Brot’s study, like that on the Sinte in
Belgium reconstructed by Alain Reyniers (1992), gives a detailed account of
how a given community can be the result of the fusion of families even with
very different pasts and origins. These, and other similar cases, bring to
mind Matras’s affirmation on the fact that substituting Kale with Sinte/-i was
just a matter of linguistic order. Mergers between family networks of
different origins could well have contributed to the change due to the partial
substitution of group members. I believe that the two phenomena could go


8. But I would not feel comfortable, as Bakker has done (2017: 91), to label Scaliger’s
dictionary published by Vulcanius in 1597 as Sinto. In any case, in this history, “inside”
stories will also be taken into consideration: for example, based on an oral testimony that I
took in 1997, the present day Truzzi, who are Sinti Italiani families, descended from German
mercenaries engaged by the Gonzagas, the lords of Mantua, in the 16th century. What is
“true” in this story handed down in the family and in other similar stories that the Sinti tell?


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124
A REPLY TO YARON MATRAS                                                               119


hand in hand, although, in order to confirm the pre-eminence of one family
network over another in the German case, we would need information on the
movements of the Kale/Sinte populations in the modern age, which we just
do not have.
   5. I find the assumption, reiterated by Matras, that the term Sinti/-e comes
from the language of travellers who were not Romanes speakers, unproven
(even though possible). The text he bases this assumption on is the Sulz
Zigeuner-Liste published by Judge Schäffer in 1787, an ante litteram
criminologist. Already two centuries earlier, Bonaventura Vulcanius (1597:
100-109) had demonstrated, from a comparison between two lists of terms,
that the “Gypsies” (which he identified as Nubians) spoke a different
language to that of other peripatetic groups (errones), often called Rotwelsch.
Other authors carried out similar comparisons in the 1700s, including
Schäffer. The particularity of his comparison was that he also gave the
translation of the German terms and phrases he reported in Rotwelsch
(Jaunerisch) and Romanes (1787: 10-11). The phrases that caught Matras’s
attention were the following:
     Die Juden bestehlen die Zigeuner sehr gern [The Jews very readily stole from
     the Gypsies]
     [Romanes:] O bibolte Tʼschorna galen gern [i.e. E Bibolde čor(e)na Kalen gern]
     [Rotwelsch:] Die Keime denneschoflen die Sende recht gern
     Die Zigeuner führen immer geladene Flinten [The Gypsies always carry loaded
     rifles]
     [Romanes:] Egalen hi Perde buschgi [i.e. E Kalen hi perde puški]
     [Rotwelsch:] Die Sende keklen alleiveil geladene Klaffen
     Im Pirmasenser Land haben es die Zigeuner gut [The Gypsies are doing well in
     Pirmasens]
     [Romanes:] Andro Pärmäsensedikotem higalenge misto [i.e. Andro Permesendiko
     tem/them hi Kalenge misto/mišto]
     [Rotwelsch:] In der Pirmasenser Martine hene Sende recht tof.

  It can be well noted that, while the anonymous translator (probably a
Kalo) translated Zigeuner (“Gypsies”) with Kale (here in the accusative and
dative: galen, galenge), the anonymous translator of the Rotwelsch (probably
a Rotwelsch-speaker) translated Zigeuner with Sinte (Sende). According to
Matras, this indicates why the autonym would have been Kale, while Sinte
would have been an exonym and then later imported as an autonym in
Romanes. Unless he has other information that he has not disclosed, if his
suggestion is only based on this, then, in my opinion, it is fragile. In this
case, it is no longer linguistic questions under discussion but rather how the
sources are interpreted:


                                      2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124
120                                                                       LEONARDO PIASERE


   a) There is nothing to affirm that, at that date (1787), Sinte was not
already in use in Romanes. Indeed, we just saw that, on the basis of Zippel
and Kraus’s studies in 1784, we are certain that it was already an autonym of
Prussian Zigeuner, who shared it with Kale (Biester 1793: 365-366). Another
interpretation could be that, among the autonyms, Sinte was the “most
reserved”, the one that was not pronounced to the first Gağo who asked for a
translation (especially in prison). It could, if anything, be used with someone
with a similar position of social marginality or someone with whom to share
a relationship of greater intimacy, like, for example, a priest (Zippel) who
cares about your condition. There is nothing to say that the Kalo translator
that Schäffer engaged did not also use Sinte9.
   b) Matras himself mentions the case of the Jenisch population, that does
not speak Romanes but which identifies his own language with a term that
derives from the Romanes (Manisch < Manuš). Why could Sinte/-i not also
have derived from a Romanes-speaking group? Is it merely because it is not
of Indian origin? Matras’s material mainly regards the German environment:
I will shift to the Italian one, which I know better, to try to explain my idea.
In 1889 (p.17), Adriano Colocci, an expert on “Gypsies” in his time, wrote
that he had never met Gypsies called Sinti in Italy, and we find the first (as
far as I know) printed affirmation of the term about ten years later in the
testimony of a Dritto (i. e. peripatetic non-Romanes speaker) who garnished
his speech with ten or so words in Dritti language, and where he said that
Sinto means “Zingaro” (“Gypsy”) (see Zucca 1902: 188-192; see also Trevisan
2011: 258). For the entire first half of the twentieth century, the term Sinto
was only listed in the so-called underworld slang meaning “Gypsy”, or
similar (also in a gergo full of Sinti terms that I briefly analysed years ago: see
Piasere 1986). We had to wait until Catholic Missionaries working among
Gypsies in the late 1950s finally established that Sinti was an autonym
widely shared among the Zingari of northern Italy (see Torreggiani s.d.;
Karpati 1962). Must we deduce that the term Sinto in Italy entered into
Romanes around 1900, imported by one of the many jargons of non-standard
Italian that contain it? Only the discovery of Cacciniʼs manuscripts will
show, on the contrary, that for the whole of the 1800s his Šinte rosengre had
been circulating around Italy (Piasere 1996; Caccini 2001). Does it mean
therefore that in the German world Sinte entered into Romanes from a non-
standard language and then made a U-turn in Italy? While everything is
possible, it is still guesswork.

9. I use my experience for this interpretation: when the Roma I know from Slovenia, Croatia
and Istria speak with Gağe, they introduce themselves as Sinti so as not to use the Italian
pejorative terms of Zingari and Nomadi; but in their Romanes, they only ever use Roma. And
there is no lack of administrative documents and publications that speak of these “Sinti”...


2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124
A REPLY TO YARON MATRAS                                                        121


   Once again, I raise doubts (which are secondary to the main thesis that
Matras and I are sharing) while waiting for linguists, anthropologists and
historians to start working more closely and organically. And I hope that our
discussion acts as a bit of a trailblazer.




                                 2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124
122                                                               LEONARDO PIASERE


REFERENCES
Bakker, Peter, 2017, The first suggestion of an Indic connection of the
      Romani language: Tentzel 1689, in Das amen godi Lev Čerenkov: romani
      historija, čhib taj kultura, Kirill Ozhanov, Mikhail Olson, eds, Graz, Karl-
      Franzens-Universität Graz.
Bataillard, Paul, 1867, Les Bohémiens ou Tsiganes à Paris, in Paris Guide par
      les principaux écrivains et artistes de la France, seconde partie, Paris,
      Librairie Internationale: 1107-1123.
Bense, Gertrud, 2004, Christian Gottfried Zippel – sein Beitrag zu multi-
      lingualen Studien in der Zeit um 1800, Annaberger-Annalen, 12: 107-
      122.
Biester, Johann Erich, 1793, Über die Zigeuner; besonders im Königreich
      Preussen, Berlinische Monatscrift, 21: 108-165, 360-393.
Biester, Johann Erich, 2014, Über die Zigeuner; besonders im Königreich
      Preussen, edited by Ulrich Kronauer, Heidelberg, Universitätsverlag
      Winter.
Brot, Annabel, 2004, Ces Gens-là. Cent ans dʼhistoires de la communauté gita-
      ne à Grenoble, Grenoble, ADHAC/CODASE.
Caccini, Sigismondo, 2001, La lingua degli Shinte rosengre e altri scritti, edited
      by Michele Barontini, Leonardo Piasere, Roma, CISU.
Colocci, Adriano, 1889, Gli Zingari. Storia di un popolo errante, Torino, Loe-
      scher.
Destro, Adriana, Mauro Pesce, 1995, Antropologia delle origini cristiane,
      Roma, Bari, Laterza.
Formoso, Bernard, Georges Calvet, 1987, Lexique tsigane. Dialecte sinto pié-
      montais, Paris, Publications Orientalistes de France.
Gilliat-Smith, Bernard, 1915-16, Report on the Gypsy Tribes of North-East
      Bulgaria, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, n.s., 9, 1: 1-54; 2: 65-109.
Ginzburg, Carlo, 1979, Spie. Radici di un paradigma indiziario, in Crisi della
      ragione, Aldo Gargani, ed, Torino, Einaudi: 59-106.
Karpati, Mirella, 1962, Ròmano Them (Mondo Zingaro), Roma, Missione
      Cattolica degli Zingari.
Kronauer, Ulrich, 2014, Vorwort, in Johan Erich Biester, Über die Zigeuner;
      besonders im Königreich Preussen, edited by Ulrich Kronauer,
      Heidelberg, Universitätsverlag Winter: VII-XLII.
Marushiakova, Elena, 1992, Ethnic Identity Among Gypsy Groups in
      Bulgaria, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, 5 series, 2: 95-115.
                                                     th




2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124
A REPLY TO YARON MATRAS                                                          123


Marushiakova, Elena, Vesselin Popov, 2004, Segmentation vs. consolidation.
      The example of four Gypsy groups in CIS, Romani Studies, 5 series, 14,
                                                                    th


      2: 145-191.
Matras, Yaron, 1999, Johann Rüdiger and the Study of Romani in 18
                                                                              th


      Century Germany, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, 5 series, 9: 89-116.
                                                             th


Matras, Yaron, 2019, Romani self-appellations in a linguistic perspective A
      reply to Leonardo Piasere, Anuac, 8, 2: 105-112.
Partisani, Sergio, 1972, Glossario del dialetto zingaro piemontese, Lacio
      drom, 4: 11-32.
Piasere, Leonardo, 1986, Le voci zingare del Glossario del gergo della malavita
      veronese di Giovanni Solinas, Civiltà veronese, 2, 5: 77-85 (re-published
      in Piasere 2011: 175-183).
Piasere, Leonardo, 1992, Considerazioni sulla presenza zingara nel nord Ita-
      lia nel XIX secolo sulla base di alcuni documenti linguistici, Ce fastu?,
      68, 2: 233-67 (re-published in Leonardo Piasere 2011: 141-173).
Piasere, Leonardo, 1996, Sigismondo Caccini e gli Śinte rozengre, in Italia
      romaní, vol. I, Leonardo Piasere, ed, Roma, CISU: 119-175.
Piasere, Leonardo, 2011, La stirpe di Cus. Storie e costruzioni di un’alterità,
      Roma, CISU.
Piasere, Leonardo, 2015, Mariages romanès. Une esquisse comparative,
      Firenze, SEID.
Piasere, Leonardo, 2017, Kikiğalé, in A Maurizio Bettini. Pagine stravaganti
      per un filologo stravagante, Adriana Romaldo, ed, Milano, Mimesis: 289-
      293.
Piasere, Leonardo, 2019, Pour une histoire des auto-dénominations romanès,
      Anuac, 8, 1: 85-118.
Pott, August, 1841, Die Zigeuner in Europen und Asien, Halle, Heynemann.
Reyniers, Alain, 1992, La roue et la pierre. Contribution anthropo-historique à
      la connaissance de la production sociale et économique des Tsiganes,
      Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris V.
Robert, Pascal, 2004, La migration des Sinté piémontais en France au 19e
      siècle, Études tsiganes, 18-19: 29-51.
Röttgers, Kurt, 1993, Kants Kollege und seine ungeschriebene Schrift über die
      Zigeuner, Heidelberg, Manutius.
Röttgers, Kurt, 2018, Illuminismo nomade. Christian Jakob Kraus, in I filosofi
      e gli zingari, Gianluca Solla, Leonardo Piasere, eds, Roma, Aracne: 123-
      132.
Schäffer, Jakob Georg, 1787, Sulz Zigeuner-Liste und genaue Beschreibung des
      zum Schaden und Gefahr des Gemeinen Wesens meistens in Schwaben, auch
      in Böhmen, Ungarn, so dann in denen Heßen Hanau-Lichtenbergischen
      Landen, und besonders bey Pirmasens herum sich aufhaltenden und herum
      vagirenden Räuber- und Zigeuner-Gesindels, Stuttgart, Cotta.

                                   2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124
                                      2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124


Senzera, Luigi F., 1986, Il dialetto dei Sinti Piemontesi, Lacio drom, 22, 2: 1-
     64.
Soravia, Giulio, 1977, Dialetti degli zingari italiani, Pisa, Pacini.
Tauber, Elisabeth, 2006, Du wirst keinen Ehemann nehmen! Respekt,
     Bedeutung der Toten und Fluchtheirat bei den Sinti Estraixaria, Berlin, LIT
     Verlag.
Tauber, Elisabeth, 2014, Quel visage aurait aujourdʼhui la raison en Europe
     centrale si Kant avait prêté lʼoreille à Christian Jakob Kraus et sʼétait
     laissé inspirer par les Sinti de Prusse? Une spéculation ethnographique,
     i n Roms, Tsiganes, Nomades. Un malentendu européen, Catherine Co-
     quio, Jean-Luc Poueyto, eds, Paris, Karthala: 327-353.
Torreggiani Dino, s.d. [1961], Manuale per lʼAssistenza Religiosa ai Nomadi in
     Italia, Reggio Emilia, Cattani.
Trevisan, Paola, 2011, Sinti e circensi: storia di un legame invisibile, in Alle
     radici dellʼEuropa. Mori, giudei e zingari nei paesi del Meditarraneo
     occidentale, vol. III, Felice Gambin, ed, Firenze, SEID: 255-273.
Vulcanius, Bonaventura, 1597, De literis & lingua Getarum, sive Gothorum,
     Lugduni Batavorum, ex Officina Plantiniana, apud Franciscum
     Raphelengium.
Williams, Patrick, 1984, Mariage tsigane, Paris, LʼHarmattan - SELAF.
Williams, Patrick, 1988, Langue tsigane. Le jeu “romanès”, in Vingt-cinq
     communautés linguistiques de la France, Geneviève Vermes, ed, Paris,
     L’Harmattan: 381-413.
Winstedt, Eric Otto, 1910, La Bella Chiavina. A French or Piedmont Gypsy
     Tale, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, n. s., 3, 4: 241-253.
Zucca, Alberto, 1902, Acrobatica e Atletica, Milano, Hoepli.




This work is licensed under the Creative Commons © Leonardo Piasere
A reply to Yaron Matras
2019 | ANUAC. VOL. 8, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2019: 113-124.
ISSN: 2239-625X - DOI: 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-3933
