SELECTED ISTRO-ROMANIAN AMPELONYMS 3

U članku se raspravlja o istrorumunjskim nazivima koji se tiču vinove loze (Vitis vinifera). Obuhvaćeni su nazivi iz svih mjesta u kojima se još uvijek govori istrorumunjski. Obradili smo stotinjak oblika (osnovnih riječi i sintagmi) koje smo dobili kao odgovore na 17 pitanja. Termini su leksikološki i etimološki obrađeni. Svaki se obrađeni termin potvrđuje i uspoređuje s građom iz svih istrorumunjskih leksičkih repertoara drugih autora koji su nam na raspolaganju, a do etimologijskih se rješenja dolazi usporedbom istrorumujskih oblika sa sličnim u okolnim čakavskim i slovenskim govorima u Istri te u čakavskim idiomima otoka Krka i Dalmacije.The paper deals with selected Istro-Romanian ampelonyms (terms related to grape vine). The terms were collected in all the places where Istro-Romanian is still in use (Žejane, Šušnjevica, Nova Vas, Jesenovik, Letaj, Brdo, Škabići, Trkovci, Zankovci, Miheli and Kostrčan). The words are compared to equivalent forms in Croatian, Slovenian and Istro-Venetian dialects and, in case of original words, to the remaining three Romanian dialects (Daco-Romanian, Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian). All the terms are lexically and etymologically elaborated. It must be said that the majority of Venetian words entered the Istro-Romanian dialects via Croatian idioms. Therefore, the majority of presented terms are from Čakavian dialects of the Croatian language. The same phenomenon is present in all other terminologies in Istro-Romanian. It is not easy to be precise when it comes to defining the stratification of the elaborated terms. We can be sure that there are only a few direct borrowings from Istro-Venetian, but we cannot be sure if the Čakavian words entered Istro-Romanian only in Istria or if they were present in their language before they left Dalmatia (Cetinska krajina). There are only a few domestic words in this terminology, mostly represented as elements in hybrid syntagms, translated from the corresponding Croatian forms. It must be mentioned that many Slavic forms we interpreted as Čakavian could belong to the common Romanian corpus, but it is not possible to be sure of this. In conclusion, the statics of the presented Istro-Romanian terminology do not differ from those of other Istro-Romanian terminologies