A sociolinguistic perspective on

Roma group names in Transylvania

Evelyne Urech and Wilco van den Heuvel

This article focuses on one aspect of a sociolinguistic survey which was done between
summer 2007 and summer 2009 by SIL International in collaboration with Manchester
University. The article evaluates data compiled from over 130 interviews with different
Romani speakers from all over Transylvania. The aspect considered here is the rela-
tionship between group names and different dialects of Romani. Both the endonyms
(how Roma groups designate themselves) and exonyms (how members from other
Roma groups refer to them) are considered. As one of our main findings, we describe
a clear correlation between present-day language varieties and two common group
names, Corturari ‘Tent Roma’ and Romungri ‘Hungarian Roma’, which reflects a major
division of Romani speakers into groups that have been travelling around and those
groups that have been settled for a longer period of time.
Keywords: dialects, dialectology, endonyms, ethnonyms, exonyms, group names,
Romania, Transylvania

A note on spelling
Group names will be given in the plural form throughout the article. For all
group names based on Romanian words, the Romanian spelling is used (e.g.
Căldărari, Băieşi, Lăutari). Group names based on words from languages other
than Romanian (but which are used as well when speaking Romanian) are
dealt with analogously (e.g. Lovari, Calapoşi, Caştale). For Romani words, and
any other group names, the usual academic transliteration is used (e.g. kašt,
roma vlaxika, Cerhari, Burgudži).
Table  1 lists the equivalent of several sounds in different writing systems.
Strict phonetic notation (IPA) and the official orthography for Romani dialects
spoken in Romania are not used in this article but rendered here for the ease
of use for readers more familiar with one of these transliteration systems.

Evelyne Urech is Sociolinguistic Researcher with SIL International, 7500 W. Camp Wisdom
Road, Dallas, TX 75236–5629, USA. E-mail: evelyne_urech@sil.org. Wilco van den Heuvel
is Linguistic Researcher at the Free University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081  HV
Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: w.vanden.heuvel@let.vu.nl
Romani Studies 5, Vol. 21, No. 2 (2011), 145–160 issn 1528–0748 (print) 1757–2274 (online)
doi: 10.3828/rs.2011.6
146
evelyne urech and wilco van den heuvel

Romani Romanian
academic standardised
IPAa ­transliterationb Romanian Romani c
[k] k c, ch + i, e k, q
[j] j, (y) (i) j, (ǎ, ǐ, ǒ, ǔ)
[x/χ] x (h) x
[r] r r r
[ɣ/ʁ/ʀ] ř (rr) rr
[ʰ] h (h) h
[ʲ] j, ’ – –
[ʃ ] š ș ś
[ʒ] ž j ź, ʒ
[ʦ] c ţ c, ç
[ʧ] č c + i, e ć
[ʤ] dž g + i, e ʒ
[ə] ә ă ä
[ɨ] – î, â ï
a
  Standard for transcribing language sounds devised by the International Phonetic
Association.
b
 A writing convention evolved among Romani scholars. See more: http://romani.
humanities.manchester.ac.uk/files/14_codification.shtml (accessed 29 Sept. 2010).
c
  Writing convention adopted by the Romanian Ministry of Education in 1991. At its
basis lies a proposal designed by Marcel Cortiade (Cortiade 1989).

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
The research presented in this article forms only a part of a broader, ongoing
survey of Romani dialects and the sociolinguistic situation of Roma in Roma-
nia. The project stands under the aegis of SIL International and is carried out
by a team of researchers affiliated with this organisation.1 Part of the research
tools and valuable feedback was provided by Yaron Matras of Manchester Uni-
versity, who was also involved in planning the survey. Field work was divided
into two periods: a period of pilot testing done in the Mureş County in May
and June 2007; and a phase of extensive data-gathering all over Transylvania
between July 2007 and June 2009. Survey team members visited 111 Roma
communities, collecting 135 short word lists, 21 longer word lists, and conduct-
ing 131 sociolinguistic interviews, through the medium of Romanian or, in a
few cases, Hungarian.

1. Anna Adámková, B. S. W., licensed social worker (Data gathering); David Gardner, PhysD.,
physicist (Computer support); Sarolta Gardner (Data gathering); Evelyne Urech, M. A., linguist
& ethnologist (Data gathering & Analysis); Talitha van den Heuvel, M. D., medical doctor (Data
gathering); Wilco van den Heuvel, PhD., linguist (Data gathering & Analysis).
 roma group names in transylvania 147

Figure 1. Overview of places visited in Transylvania

This article addresses one specific aspect of the survey, i.e., Roma group names.
A thorough report of the full survey will be published in the SIL International
electronic survey report series (http://www.sil.org/SILESR/).

1.2. Methodology
1.2.1.  Research tools
The survey draws on the following research tools.

1.2.1.1 Word lists

Two word lists were used in order to identify local language varieties of Rom-
ani. One of them comprises of 32 words and short phrases, containing some
of the key diagnostic features of Romani dialect variation. The initial version
of this list was provided by Yaron Matras from Manchester University and
has been slightly elaborated by the survey team in the course of the research.
Respondents were asked to translate the 32 items from either Romanian or
Hungarian into their variety of Romani. All the answers were electronically
recorded and transcribed on paper on the spot using the IPA notation. Later,
recordings were listened to again to check for things we might have missed.
The use of this short word list enabled us to efficiently classify local varieties of
Romani, while also minimising any hesitancy of respondents to participate in
148
evelyne urech and wilco van den heuvel

the survey as it was not too time-consuming. In a few cases (twenty locations)2
an extended word list (containing 1060 words, phrases, verb paradigms, and
a short narrative) which had been developed by the Romani Project hosted at
Manchester University was also collected. This long word list was only elicited
in Romanian, thus Roma respondents translated orally from Romanian into
their variety of Romani, while we electronically recorded their answers. Based
on these recordings, all entries were transcribed employing the conventions
used in Romani linguistics, either by the staff of Manchester University, or by
survey team members Wilco van den Heuvel and Sarolta Gardner. The long
word list provides a deeper insight into several local varieties of Romani.
1.2.1.2.  Sociolinguistic interviews
In nearly all instances the short word list was followed by a guided interview
about the personal background of the respondents, the local Roma community,
language use patterns, dialect intelligibility, education, etc. The researchers had
a set of questions and topics in mind which they covered during an interview,
however, the respondents were allowed the freedom to add other topics they
found relevant. While the researcher had one main conversational partner
who provided the information for the word list, many interviews took on the
character of a group discussion, which helped to get a multi-faceted insight
into the subjects brought up. All interviews were done either in Romanian or
Hungarian, and were recorded.
1.2.1.3.  Observation
Observation of natural language use revealed much about the vitality of the
language, and it helped in evaluating to which degree the reported language
use practices correspond with the actual linguistic behaviour in the commu-
nity.

1.2.2.  Sampling
Sampling was not done in a strictly statistical way but rather by intensive net-
working. Contacts with the local Roma communities were established through
contact persons (both non-Roma and Roma) from various NGOs, village
or town administration, churches, the Roma political party, school teachers,
medical doctors, etc. In addition to these more ‘official’ ways of being intro-
duced, several respondents provided the researchers with addresses of family
members or acquaintances whom they considered as being able to contribute
2. Albeşti I+II (Mureş County), Bahnea (Mureş County), Brâncoveneşti (Mureş County),
Corneşti (Mureş County), Cuieşd (Mureş County), Deaj (Mureş County), Diosig (Bihor
County), Glodeni (Mureş County), Ineu de Criş (Bihor County), Lugaşu de Jos (Bihor County),
Măguri (Timiş County), Mal (Sălaj County), Năsăud (Bistriţa-Năsăud County), Săcuieni (Bihor
County), Senereuş (Mureş County), Spinuş (Bihor County), Tămaşda (Bihor County), Tinca
(Bihor County), Uileacu de Criş (Bihor County), Velţ (Sibiu County).
 roma group names in transylvania 149

interesting data to the present study. Thus, as time went by, the network of
contacts grew ‘organically’. The data collected in this way is valuable and can
be considered representative for various reasons, the mains ones being (a) the
good geographical coverage and the large number of places visited; (b) con-
tacts were made through representatives from very different social networks;
and (c) new data confirming what has already been found.

2.  Basic linguistic findings

When we compared the short word lists, it became evident that there are four
linguistic factors which regularly correlate. These factors are:
a. s vs. h in different positions (e.g. instrumental case ending (-sa, -ha), copula
(som, hom))
b. š vs. č in certain lexical items (e.g. šavo/čavo ‘boy’)
c. ‘nothing’ with vs. without -n- (e.g. khanč(-i) vs. khajč(-i))
d. ‘tomorrow’ related to teha(-ra)/tehe or to tejsa/tejse
On the basis of the correlations that we found, local language varieties in our
sample can clearly be divided into two categories. As presented in Table 1, half
the varieties are characterised by the correlation of s, š, a khanč(-i) related form
in the word for ‘nothing’ (indicated in the fourth column by a +), and a teha(-
ra)/tehe related form for ‘tomorrow’. As these varieties clearly dominate in the
southern part of Transylvania, in this article we will refer to them as South
Transylvanian (ST) dialects. Another 40 per cent of the local language varieties
in our sample show the correlation of h, č, a khajč(-i) related form in the word
for ‘nothing’ (indicated in the fourth column by a –), and a tejsa/tejse related
form for ‘tomorrow’. We will refer to them here as North Transylvanian (NT)
dialects, as the local language varieties making up this group prevail in the
north and north-east of the area under study. Only 10 per cent of all the local
Romani varieties examined did not fit neatly into one of the two categories.
Further study is needed in order to evaluate to which degree this is due to
insufficient or deficient data, or to inter-dialectal contact.
It should be stressed that the terms NT and ST are used here simply as
descriptive labels to refer to the two categories which are established empir-
ically. In this article we will show, however, that these two categories can be
correlated to certain group names, and as such reflect certain historical devel-
opments.
In the southern Transylvanian counties (Alba, Arad, Braşov, Huneadoara,
Sibiu, and Timişoara) and in the east (Harghita) only ST dialects are found.
In the two northern Transylvanian counties, Maramureş and Bistriţa-Năsăud,
NT dialects clearly dominate. In all other counties both groups are represented
150
evelyne urech and wilco van den heuvel

Table 1. Correlations of factors
Percentage of
varieties with this Factor d:
combination of Factor a: Factor b: Factor c: teha vs.
factors s vs. h š vs. č + vs. − n tejsa
c. 50 s š + h ST dialects
c. 40 h č − s NT dialects
c. 3 h č − h
c. 2.5 s š č + h
<2 h š + h
<2 h č + h
<1 h s š č N/A h
<1 h s č − s

with no detectable geographical distribution between them. This means that

speakers of different Romani varieties live closely together, sometimes even in
the same village. In a situation like this it must be expected that the different
dialects influence each other. But even though NT and ST dialects have a lot
in common, they can still clearly be distinguished – based on the four factors
presented above.
We plan to publish the in-depth linguistic findings, data about intra-group
variation, and a discussion about the position of the Romani varieties present
in Transylvania with regard to the Romani landscape in general. For the time
being, we will limit ourselves to stating that – in very general and simplified
terms – the ‘North-Transylvanian features’ are either exclusive to the area
(khajč(-i)), not described elsewhere, or similar to certain varieties found to
the north and west of Transylvania (tejsa/tajsa, h in instrumental or copula)
(Boretzky and Igla 2004a: 198; Matras 2002: 229f), while the ‘South-Transyl-
vanian features’ (tehara, khanč/khanči) are more characteristic of Vlax as a
whole (Boretzky and Igla 2004a: 108, 198, Matras 2002: 224) or Northern Vlax
specifically (š instead of č) (Boretzky and Igla 2004a: 250).3
For the purpose of this article it suffices for the reader to be aware of the
existence of these two broad dialect groups. In the following section we will set
out to show that there exists a strong correlation between these two groups and
certain group names.

3.  The form tehe is not described as such, nor can it be found in the Romlex online dictionary
(http://romani.uni-graz.at/romlex/).
 roma group names in transylvania 151

3.  Group names

3.1.  General remarks
The Roma are characterised by a great internal heterogeneity. Subgroups are
differentiated by various factors such as life style, religion, language, internal
structures, period and routes of migration, and level of integration in the
broader national community. The names used to refer to the subgroups often
reflect these factors while the actual terms Roma use are generally borrowed
from Romanian, Turkish, or Hungarian (see Bakker et al. 2000: 60f, Matras
2002: 5f, Tcherenkov and Laederich 2004: 275–309):
–– Names deduced from (traditional) occupations, e.g. ‘horse dealers’: Lovari
(Hung. ló ‘horse’), ‘drill makers’: Burgudži/Bugurdži (Turk. burgucu ‘gim-
let maker’), ‘comb makers’: Pieptănari (Rom. pieptene ‘comb’), ‘musicians’:
Lăutari (Rom. lăută ‘lute, stringed instrument’).
–– Names related to present or former place of residence, e.g. Bergicka Roma
(Germ. Berg ‘mountain’)4, Burgenland Roma (Burgenland is the easternmost
Austrian province), Mačvaja (Mačva is a region in northwestern Serbia).
–– Names relating to a common ancestor, e.g. Gabori, descendants of a clan
leader of that name.
–– Names conveying religious affiliation, e.g. ‘Muslim Roma’: Xoroxane (Rom-
ani xoraxaj/koraxaj ‘foreigner’, or ultimately from Qur’an).
–– Names referring to dominant surrounding people groups, e.g. ‘Hungarian
Roma’, ‘Polish Roma’.
–– Names relating to way of living, e.g. ‘settled people’: Arlija (Turk. yerli
‘local’), Rromi de vatră (Rom. vatră ‘hearth’), ‘Tent Roma’: Cortorari (Rom.
cort ‘tent’).
–– Names marking social standing, e.g. ‘Silk Gypsies’: Ţigani de mătase.
Group names are not static concepts, but a means used by individuals, or
groups of people, to position themselves with respect to other individuals or
groups. Thus a single group of Roma can use several endonyms, depending
on how it wants to present itself, and at the same time this group can also be
given different exonyms, depending on either the person using it, or on the
context in which it is used. Moreover group names can be a reason of debate
or negotiating:
Roma placing themselves in one of the main groups do not necessarily accept all other
Roma placing themselves in the same main group. In other words, some Roma who
declare membership of a group are not regarded as belonging to the group by others in
the same group.  (Szuhay 2005: 237)

4. Name used for Roma living in mountainous Poland near the Slovakian border.
152
evelyne urech and wilco van den heuvel

Even though group names are generally flexible and can change accord-
ing to the situation, or over time, there is often a tendency to conservatism
in name-giving. Because of this, certain names remain in use even after the
conditions that led to the application of the name have disappeared (e.g. Ursari,
from Rom. urs ‘bear’, are no longer ‘bear trainers’, most Lovari don’t work with
horses anymore).
Group names with the same semantic meaning, like for example Ursari,
Mečkara (Serb. mečka ‘bear’), Medvedara (Slovak medved’ ‘bear’), Ričkara
(Romani rič ‘bear’), and Ajdžijes (Turk. ay ‘bear’), do not necessarily imply that
all the Roma bearing those names are culturally and linguistically very similar,
some of them might not even speak Romani anymore (Hübschmannová 2003,
Bakker et al. 2000: 60).
One case study will suffice to illustrate here how complex subgroup labelling
can be. In Deaj (Mureş County), the Romani speaking community refers to
itself as (1) Cărămidari (Rom. cărămidă ‘brick’) ‘brick makers’, indicating their
traditional profession, but also as (2) Ţigani de casă ‘House Gypsies’, to express
their position as settled Roma in opposition to the Cortorari ‘Tent Roma’, and
as (3) Ţigani Românizaţi ‘Romanianised Gypsies’, to express a closer relation-
ship to the Romanian population and to distinguish themselves from more
“traditional”, less assimilated Roma, and finally also as (4) Ţigani de mătase ‘Silk
Gypsies’, thus declaring their way of living as more “refined” in comparison
with other Roma groups. The Cortorari ‘Tent Roma’, on the other hand, refer
to the Roma from Deaj as (1) Romunguri, a term that could be translated as
‘Hungarian Roma’ and which is used to express their (past) assimilation to
the Hungarian population (cf. the section on Cortorari and Romungri below)
which again is presented as standing in contrast to the Cortorari’s own more
pure and “original” position, or in Romani as (2) Lolo po pər ‘(Those who are)
red on the belly’,5 a Romani expression which seems to be used as a mocking
name for groups that are considered Romunguri.

3.2.  Data collection

The information on Roma group names presented here is based exclusively on
what Roma people say about themselves and about others. The relevant topics
discussed with respondents during the sociolinguistic interview were: a. self-
designation, and b. designation given by other Roma. We thus received four
types of group names: endonyms (‘We are Ţigani de mătasa.’), exonyms (‘They
are Ţigani de mătasa.’), reported exonyms (‘They call us Ţigani de mătasa.’),
5.  This expression seems to be used by Cortorari to refer to Romungri. It was applied to the
Roma in Senereuş and Bahnea (both Mureş County) as well. Where the designation stems from
is unknown.
 roma group names in transylvania 153

and reported endonyms (‘They say that they are Ţigani de mătasa’). Although
interviews were conducted in Romanian or Hungarian,6 in a later phase of the
research the group names were asked for using a Romani dialect the researcher
knew. Additionally respondents were asked about (traditional) trades, ways of
living, internal community structures, customs (marriage, clothing), religious
appurtenance, dialect intelligibility, language use patterns, etc.7
For the present analysis only ethnonyms which were mentioned to the
researchers are taken into account. This type of data is subjective in nature, but
provides significant insights into the name-giving processes at hand. It will be
correlated with the information on the local language varieties (as obtained
from the short word lists), which could be considered as data which is less
prone to subject bias.

3.3.  Data discussion

3.3.1.  No specific name
Concerning names for Roma subgroups, the first observation to be made is
that about 45 per cent of all respondents did not associate with any specific
subgroup, but instead only gave the generic Roma (in Romani) or Ţigani (in
Romanian) as an answer to the question about what type of Roma they were.
This pattern of self-reference is mentioned elsewhere too (Bakker et al. 2000: 61,
Matras 2002: 5, Tcherenkov and Laederich 2004: 277). In our case, respondents
were familiar with typical group names, but they often mentioned them only in
order to state that their group does not belong to any of the clusters mentioned.

3.3.2.  Status of the term ‘Gypsy’

The second observation to be made is that the term Gypsy (Ţigan in Romanian,
Cigány in Hungarian) is widely accepted and used in a neutral manner when
conversing in the majority language. The only people we met who explicitly
preferred the use of Roma or Rromi over ‘Gypsies’, considering the latter derog-
ative, were trained teachers of Romani language and culture, or members of
the Roma Political Party. Otherwise people generally preferred to use the term
Gypsy, saying: “We are proud of being Ţigani!”, “We are not ashamed of being
Ţigani!”, “Only the ones ‘up there’ in politics insist that we should be called
Rromi!”, or they were indifferent with respect to the use of either of the terms.

6. Only the six interviews done in the Harghita County were conducted in Hungarian. In
Harghita Hungarian is clearly the predominant language. However, Hungarian group names are
not taken into account in this article.
7. While most of the questions used were inspired by the Manchester Ethnographic
Questionnaire (a set of questions elicited in conjunction with the long word list), we did not use
their entire list and went into more detail at certain points.
154
evelyne urech and wilco van den heuvel

3.3.3.  Relations between ethnonyms and dialects

The third observation to be made is that a correlation between dialects and
group names can be established. In the following paragraphs we will elabor-
ate on this point while restricting ourselves to some of the most commonly
attested group names.
3.3.3.1.  General division into two groups
Figure 2 shows a basic division of Roma in Transylvania into speakers of ST
dialects (under the broken line) and speakers of NT dialects (above the broken
line). The two circles are representative of certain group names, while the size
of the circles is a rough and intuitive indication of the number of Roma for
whom this term is, or could be, used.8

Romungri
(exonym)
NT dialects
ST dialects
Cortorari/Corturari
‘Tent Roma’
(exonym + endonym)

Figure 2. Romungri vs. Cortorari

The group names given in this figure are mutually exclusive and each one is
associated with only one of the two dialect groups. The Romanian term Cor-
torari/Corturari ‘Tent Roma’ (or in Romani Cerhari, from cerha ‘tent’)9 is used
exclusively for speakers of ST dialects, while the name Romungri/Romunguri/
Rumungri/Rumunguri/Rromi Unguri/Romungurisa/Romunglâi is used exclu-
sively for speakers of NT dialects.
Compared to other group names used for speakers of ST dialects, Cortorari
is the most frequently applied name. Whereas it is almost always used both as a
self-designation and as an outsider-designation, we have met some cases where
it was only given either as an exonym (“They are Cortorari.”), or as a reported
exonym (“Others call us Cortorari.”). In two instances, both in Cugir, Alba
County, respondents stated that others call them Cortorari, but they them-
selves explicitly denied this. The term Cortorari ‘Tent Roma’ historically points
to (semi-)nomadic groups. Nowadays, the name seems to be associated with
certain features which are considered as traditional, like traditional dresses

8.  We do not have data on the total number of ST speakers nor on the number of NT speakers.
9.  See Olivera on the equation of the Romanian term Cortorari and the Romani term Cerhari
(Olivera 2007: 157). In our data the term Cerhari is used very rarely.
 roma group names in transylvania 155

(hats for men, long skirts and long hair for women), certain marriage customs,
the presence of group leaders (bulibaşă), or the traditional court (romani kris).
Contrary to Cortorari, the name Romungri is used exclusively as an exonym.
The singular form rom ungur or rumungur could be translated as ‘Hungarian
Rom’ and is probably an expression of the fact that historically Romungri lived
among Hungarians, and would typically use Hungarian as their first second
language, i.e., the first language learned after or next to Romani. Although
many Romungri would refer to themselves as ‘Hungarian Roma’, (in Roma-
nian: Ţigani Ungureşti, Ţigani Unguri), it should be noted that the present use
of the term ‘Hungarian Roma’ in Transylvania does not fully coincide with the
notion of Romungri, a phenomenon which we will come back to below. More-
over, in certain regions the name Romungri is used for Roma who no longer
know Romani.
The clear correlation between these two ethnonyms and the respective dia-
lect groups is a strong indication that the two sets of correlating features, which
we termed as ST and NT dialects, are not just a theoretical construct but indeed
reflect a historical reality. Speakers of NT dialects seemed to have been settled
in Transylvania for a longer period of time and typically had Hungarian as
their first second language. In the course of time, they assimilated to a certain
degree into the majority population, losing many of their traditional customs.
Some even gave up speaking Romani. This line of reasoning conforms to the
fact, often pointed out, that the term Romungri is used for groups who set-
tled down long ago (see Hübschmannová 2003, Bakker et al. 2000: 61). The
speakers of ST dialects, on the other hand, led a nomadic or semi-nomadic life
until quite recently, and generally did not assimilate as much into the majority
population as the Romungri.
3.3.3.2.  Groups speaking South Transylvanian varieties of Romani
Now, focusing only on group names used by, or for, ST dialect speakers, one
can extend the lower part of Figure 2 as in Figure 3.
As can be seen in Figure 3, some communities of ST speakers are referred
to as Ciurari ‘sieve makers’ (Rom. ciur ‘sieve’), indicating their historical pro-
fession. This term is used both as an endonym and exonym, as is the case for
Cortorari ‘Tent Roma’, while for some of the Ciurari communities the name is

Ciurari Gabori

Căldărari Cortorari

Figure 3.  Groups speaking ST varieties

156
evelyne urech and wilco van den heuvel

acceptable only as an exonym. Some of the Ciurari would also be considered

Cortorari (by themselves or by others).
Another group to be mentioned are the Căldărari (also Kalderash/Kelderash)
or ‘kettle makers’. The name indicates a historical profession and is used
both as an endonym and exonym. Although, in our interviews, none of the
Căldărari spontaneously mentioned Cortorari ‘Tent Roma’ as an alternative
label for their group, some respondents did accept this name as an appropriate
designation after having been asked about it.
Finally, there is the group which is known under the name Gabori. Attested
exonyms for this group are Cortorari ‘Tent Roma’, Ciotârnari/Cetârnari (Hung.
csatorna ‘gutter, drainpipe’), referring to their profession of guttering, same as
badogoşi (Hung. bádog ‘tin’). Because of the hats worn by Gabori men, the group
can also be referred to as Calapoşi (Hung. kalap ‘hat’). This term is accepted
by Gabori as a self-appellation as well. The highest concentration of Gabori
is found in predominantly Hungarian areas. This explains why they refer to
themselves, and are referred to by others, as Ţigani Ungureşti/Ţigani Unguri
‘Hungarian Roma’,10 a label otherwise not used for ST speakers (see next sec-
tion). Some writers attest to an overlap between Gabori and Căldărari ‘kettle
makers’ or Ciurari ‘sieve makers’ (Berta 2007: 32, Olivera 2007: 11). On the
basis of our data, this cannot be evaluated because there are very few instances
of respondents mentioning these names in combination. The language variety
which the Gabori speak can clearly be classified as a ST dialect. But compared
to other ST varieties, the Gabori variety forms a separate subgroup which is
distinguished not only by linguists (e.g. Gardner & Gardner 2008), but also by
Gabori themselves and by the speakers of other Romani varieties.
3.3.3.3.  ‘Romanian Roma’ and ‘Hungarian Roma’
Many Roma in Transylvania refer to themselves as either Ţigani Româneşti/
Ţigani Români ‘Romanian Roma’ or as Ţigani Ungureşti/Ţigani Unguri ‘Hun-
garian Roma’. One can now add these terms to the figure, see Figure 4.
As stated above, the word Romungri is used as an exonym for certain groups
of Roma who speak a NT dialect, and who typically used to live among a
majority population of Hungarians, having Hungarian as their first second
language. Nowadays, however, the name Romungri does not necessarily imply
proficiency in Hungarian, as the name can also be used for groups who have
adopted Romanian as a first second language (as in Band or Deaj, both in
the Mureş County). While the name Romungri does not bear any relation to
the present use of Hungarian, both the Romani designation roma ungrika
‘Hungarian Roma’ and the Romanian terms Ţigani Ungureşti/Ţigani Unguri

10. Interestingly, because the Gabori see themselves as ‘Hungarian Roma’, some have reinter-
preted the term Romungri to mean ‘Romanian Roma’ román-gri!
 roma group names in transylvania 157

hungarian roma

Romungri
NT dialects
ST dialects Ciurari
Gabori

Căldărari
Cortorari

ROMANIAN ROMA

Figure 4.  ‘Romanian Roma’ vs. ‘Hungarian Roma’

‘Hungarian Roma’11 do. They are opposed to the Romani terms Roma vlaxika/
Roma laxika/Roma lexika, ‘Walachian/Romanian Roma’ or the Romanian
terms Ţigani Româneşti/Ţigani Români ‘Romanian Roma’. For ease of descrip-
tion, we will use the English terms ‘Hungarian Roma’ and ‘Romanian Roma’
here. ‘Hungarian Roma’ have Hungarian as their first second language, and
they generally feel more connected to the Hungarian population than to ethnic
Romanians. ‘Romanian Roma’ are bilingual in Romani and Romanian, and
associate more with ethnic Romanians than with Hungarians.
As can be seen in Figure 4, the terms ‘Romanian Roma’ and ‘Hungarian
Roma’ are used for speakers of both NT and ST dialects. However, there is a
tendency that most ‘Hungarian Roma’ speak a NT variety (the only exception
being the Gabori), and many ‘Romanian Roma’ speak a ST variety.
The term Ţigani Românizaţi ‘Romanianised Roma’, a term specifically refer-
ring to a perceived cultural assimilation into the majority population, was also
often encountered, but Ţigani Maghiarizaţi ‘Hungarianised Roma’ was attested
to only once (i.e., in Lăschia, Maramureş County).
Roma refer to Non-Roma as Ga(d)že. Even though this term can be used
for all Non-Roma, it is often associated first only with the majority popula-
tion among which the specific Roma group is living. Thus Ga(d)že refers to
Hungarians in Hungarian dominated regions, and to Romanians in Roma-
nian dominated areas. In certain regions formerly dominated by the Saxons
(Germans) Ga(d)že still refers to Saxons primarily (e.g. Petriş, Bistriţa-Năsăud
County). Following this, the Romani expression Roma Ga(d)žikane can cor-
respond either to ‘Romanian Roma’ or ‘Hungarian Roma’, depending on the
present or historical situation of the Roma for whom this designation is used.

11.  Most probably the Hungarian term Magyar Cigányok is parallel to this.
158
evelyne urech and wilco van den heuvel

3.3.4.  Some other group names

In this last section we would like to list several common Transylvanian group
names which are not associated with either the NT or ST dialect groups.
One of those common group names is Cărămidari (or Cărămizari) ‘brick
makers’, a name which indicates a historical profession.
Another name found among both NT and ST groups is the name Ţigani de
mătase or ‘Silk Gypsies’. This term is mainly used as a self-designation. ‘Silk
Gypsies’ are seen as having a higher status, or social position, being more
“refined” or more like the majority population in comparison to other Roma
groups. Ries describes how the term is used to indicate wealthy Roma who
have managed to adapt or even over-adapt to the Gadže world (Ries 2007:
97–106, 212–14).
Finally, we would like to mention the term Caştale/Caştalâi ‘wood work-
ers’ (Romani kašt ‘wood’), to which some respondents gave the Romanian
equivalent băieşi/beiaşi/beaşi ‘miners, gold washers’ (Rom. băieş ‘person
working in a (gold) mine’), which is parallel to rudari (Slavic ruda ‘metal’),
while others mentioned lingurari ‘spoon makers’ (Rom. lingură ‘spoon’) also
as a counterpart. Historically all these terms probably refer to settled Roma
groups who used to work as miners, therefore the terms Rudari and Băieşi.
At some point many of them left this occupation in order to make wooden
utensils (baskets, brooms, spoons, etc.) instead, thus the terms Caştale and
Lingurari (Sarău 2006: 5). This explains why these four different labels (Băieşi,
Caştale, Lingurari, Rudari) refer, more or less, to the same cluster of people.
All of these terms are most commonly used as exonyms to denote Roma who
do not speak Romani. However, we found a few exceptions: One respondent
from Lugaşu de Jos, in Bihor County, who used Caştale to refer to his own
Romani-speaking community; and some other Romani-speaking groups who
were called Caştale/Caştalâi by outsiders – this was the case in Valcău de Sus,
Sălaj County, and in Ineu, Bihor County. However, in Baia Sprie, Maramureş
County, there lives a community of Roma who speak Romani and use Băieşi
as an endonym.

4. Summary
This article discussed several group names used by Roma in Transylvania,
focusing on the question of how these names are connected to the two Romani
dialect groups represented in Transylvania. To conclude, we summarise the
significant findings.
Firstly, we found a strong correlation between group names and ST or NT
dialects. The fact that the name Cortorari is only applied to speakers of the ST
varieties shows a strong indication for the assumption that there is a historic-
 roma group names in transylvania 159

al connection between present-day communities speaking a ST variety, and

groups of Roma who used to travel around, some of them until recently. At the
same time, the fact that the term Romungri is used exclusively for speakers of
NT varieties implies a historical continuity between Roma groups who speak
NT varieties and groups that are, or used to be, living in an area where Hungar-
ians are the majority.
Secondly, we noted that certain group names are used exclusively for sub-
groups that speak ST varieties. These names refer either to a historical profes-
sion (Ciurari. Căldărari), or to a certain lineage (Gabori). The term Cărămidari
refers to a profession as well, but unlike the names mentioned so far, it does not
predict whether the community referred to as Cărămidari speaks a NT or a ST
variety.
Finally, we found a number of group names which correlate weakly, or not at
all, with the two dialect groups. The labels ‘Hungarian Roma’ and ‘Romanian
Roma’ are typically used to express the group’s first second language, while
the term ‘romanianised’ indicates a perceived assimilation of the group to the
Romanian population. The same is true for the term Ţigani de mătase which
is used to refer to groups who have (over-)adapted to the majority population.
The names Caştale, Băieşi and Lingurari are the commonly preferred names
used for non-Romani speaking groups.

References
Bakker, Peter, Hübschmanová, Milena, Kalinin, Valdemar, Kenrick, Donald, Kyuchu-
kov, Hristo, Matras, Yaron, and Soravia, Giulio. 2000. What is the Romani lan-
guage? Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press.
Berta, Peter. 2007. Ethnicisation of value – the value of ethnicity: The prestige-item
economy as a performance of ethnic identity among the Gabors of Transylvania
(Romania). Romani Studies. Fifth Series. 17 (5): 31–65.
Boretzky, Norbert, and Igla, Birgit. 2004a. Kommentierter Dialektatlas des Romani.
Teil 1. Vergleich der Dialekte. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Cortiade, Marcel. 1989. La standardisation du Romanès. In: Williams, Patrick, ed. Tsi-
ganes: Identité, évolution. Paris: Syros/Études Tsiganes. 375–84.
Gardner, David J., and Gardner, Sárolta A. 2008. A provisional phonology of Gabor
Romani. Romani Studies. Fifth Series. 18: 155–99.
Hübschmannová, Milena. 2003. Untergruppen der Roma. ROMBASE. http://ling.
kfunigraz.ac.at/~rombase/cgi-bin/art.cgi?src=data/ethn/topics/names.de.xml,
accessed 12 Sept. 2011.
Matras, Yaron. 2002. Romani: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Olivera, Martin. 2007. Romanès ou l’intégration traditionelle des Gabori de Transyl-
vanie. Doctorate Thesis. Paris: Université Paris X. (http://www.romeurope.org/
proto/IMG/these-martin-olivera-romanes.pdf, accessed 12 Sept. 2011).
160
evelyne urech and wilco van den heuvel

Ries, Johannes. 2007. Welten Wanderer – Über die kulturelle Souveränität siebenbür-
gischer Zigeuner und den Einfluss des Pfingstchristentums. Würzburg: Ergon.
Sarău, Gheorghe. 2006. Dicţionar Rrom-Român. Bucharest: Sigma.
Szuhay, Péter. 2005. The self-definitions of Roma ethnic groups and their perceptions
of other Roma groups. In: Kemény, István, ed. Roma of Hungary. New York:
Columbia University Press. 237–46. (http://www.mtaki.hu/docs/kemeny_istvan_​
ed_roma_of_hungary/peter_szuhay_the_self_definitions_of_roma_ethnic_
groups.pdf, accessed 12th September 2011)
Tcherenkov, Lev, and Laedrerich, Stéphane. 2004. The Rroma. Vol. 1: History, language,
and groups. Basel: Schwabe.
Copyright of Romani Studies is published by Liverpool University Press, and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without Liverpool University Press's express written copyright
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.