Paliga, Sorin 2015. The Pre-Indo-European Issue Revisited.

The Old
Slavic Heritage and Its Survival. Etymological Research into Old Church
Slavonic. Proceedings of the Etymological Symposium Brno 2014, 9–11
September 2014, Brno. Ed. by Ilona Janyšková & Helena Karlíková.
Praha: Lidové noviny, pp. 299–307.

Etymological
Research
into Old Church
Slavonic
Proceedings of the
Etymological Symposium Brno 2014,
9 – 11 September 2014, Brno

Edited by
Ilona Janyšková
& Helena Karlíková

Nakladatelství
Lidové noviny
Praha 2015
sorin paliga: the pre-indo-european
issue revisited. the old slavic
heritage and its survival

Abstract: The paper briefly analyzes the complex problems referring to the Pre-Indo-
-European heritage of Europe v. the Indo-European heritage and, in a larger context,
v. ‘Nostratic’ or ‘Nostratic-like’ theories. Slavic ryba ‘fish’ has been chosen for analysis, at-
tempting to enlarge the list of possibly related forms, among these the river-Name Raba,
Romanian roabă ‘a wheelbarrow’ < ‘wheel’ and the verb a răbda ‘to endure, to suffer’ < ‘to
have one’s back curved under a heavy burden’, not excluded to be related with Slavic rabъ,
robъ ‘a serf ’, in which case the etymology of this latter form should be re-considered. The re-
constructed root is a Pre-Indo-European root *R-B- ‘rotund, curvilinear; to bend.’ Keywords:
Pre-Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Nostratic, Proto-Boreal, linguistic reconstruction.

Premises

Over the last decades the attention of most linguists preoccupied with the
heritage of prehistoric Europe and Asia – to just limit our brief review to this
area – seems to have focused on the Indo-European issues and, after initial hes-
itations, on the possible relations between the Indo-European proto-language,
on the one hand, Uralic and Altaic, on the other. To date, there are several
convergent theories. They may be labeled ‘Nostratic’ (preserving the first term
used for this type of analysis) or ‘Nostratic-like’ theories. Out of the known
attempts, three seem relevant to us, as they have their internal coherence of
analysis, even if some details may be debatable:
1. Pedersen–Svityč, known as Nostratic proper;
2. Nikolaj Dmitrievič Andreev and his ‘Proto-Boreal’ theory;
3. Joseph Greenberg and his Euroasiatic theory.
Less has been written on the Pre-Indo-European (Non-Indo-European)
heritage of Europe and still less on the possible Pre-Indo-European (hereafter
Pre-IE) heritage of Slavic. I attempted a first analysis of the issue in Paliga
1992, then in a larger context, e.g. Paliga 1998. Recently, I tried a new inter-
pretation of the Slavic form tъrgъ/тръгъ (Balkanic conference in Toruń, May
2013, the volume will be reportedly printed in 2015). The form was considered
of Sumerian origin by Machek 1971, a hypothesis difficult to accept as such.
Nevertheless – if ‘read’, or reinterpreted, in a larger context – this may be la-
beled ‘of Pre-Indo-European origin.’ This is what I suggested in the case of
tъrgъ, тръгъ, with the important note that it seems to be a trade, ‘migratory’
term originating in the Adriatic-Illyrian area, rather than a strictly indigenous
term preserved from the idioms spoken in the Neolithic. The hypothesis of a
 300 ‘technical’ term, migrated from southern Europe towards the Slavic home-
Paliga land, is consistent with the trade routes of the Classical and Post-Classical
times. This is, ultimately, what Machek also thought, when he hypothesized
a Sumerian origin.
As a matter of basic principles, accepting Pre-Slavic, even Pre-IE terms in
Slavic has nothing spectacular or should not have, as such elements are or may
be identified in many European languages. There are important local differ-
ences, though: The Pre-IE heritage represents over 50% of the Greek vocabu-
lary; it is also important in other languages like Latin (where we may accept
an Etruscan influence¹) or Hittite, where the Hatti stratum was important.
This linguistic stratum is seemingly either very rare or inexistent in Germanic
or Celtic, equally very rare in Slavic. These linguistic data correspond to the
archaeological finds regarding the Neolithic cultures.

Case study: Slavic ryba ‘fish.’ The principle

of repeatability (Skok’s principles)

An interesting example is Slavic ryba ‘fish.’ It seems an isolated word, having

a loose similarity with Old High German rūppa, German Aalraupe, thus ana-
lyzed in the context of a ‘pra-evropské slovo’ – Machek regularly uses the term
‘praevropské’ with the connotation ‘Non-Indo-European’, i.e. Pre-IE. Rejzek
2001: 552 assumes that the word is ‘neprůhledná inovace’ (an unclear, i.e. non-
-analyzable, innovation), in the context of comparing it with other innovations
like Latin piscis and German Fisch, English fish. The Latin and Germanic forms
are related, but this does not offer – in our interpretation – a hint for explain-
ing Slavic ryba.
In order to explain the origin of ryba we should accept, as a starting prin-
ciple, that (1) Proto-Slavic did inherit Pre-Slavic forms (‘praevropská slova’ in
Machek’s terminology), and that (2) these forms are not isolated, but may be
interpreted in a larger European context of similar Pre-IE forms. Beside tъrgъ
(see above), we may also note another ‘slovo praevropské’ like Czech beran ‘a
ram’, Slovak and Polish baran etc., Proto-Slavic *baran, a seemingly accepted
‘slovo praevropské’ given its similarity with Albanian berr ‘a sheep.’ Less quot-
ed in this context is Romanian bâr, bîr ‘a sheep’ (dialectal); undoubtedly related
is the mountain name Bârsa, personal name Bârsan, Bârseanu, also used as an
adjective in the syntagma oaie bârsană ‘a sheep of the Bârsa region.’

1 Etruscan is, beyond any reasonable doubt, a non-Indo-European language in its essen-
tials, even if some IE elements may be identified. The problem is complex, and cannot
be developed in this brief analysis.
 We may therefore have a minimal set of forms, allowing us to postulate that 301
the hypothesis of Pre-Slavic (read: Pre-IE) forms in the basic vocabulary is Paliga
acceptable and entirely corresponding to the archaeological evidence regard-
ing prehistory. This is the basic principle of repeatability as mentioned by Skok
1950 in his reference study regarding the place-names of the Adriatic Croatian
islands (opetovanja toponima). Many of the names are of Pre-Indo-European
origin (a more detailed discussion of Skok’s analysis in Paliga 2013:118 ff.) in
the context in which many other southeast European place and river names
are of Pre-Indo-European origin. Some of these forms are similar or identi-
cal in several locations (Skok’s principle of identity – princip identičnosti ili
istovetnosti and, of course, the identity of the root – identičnost osnove). In our
case, the crucial problem is to identify convincing forms related to Slavic ryba,
others than the seemingly unique parallel suggested by Machek. This is not an
easy task but, once achieved, may offer new perspectives.
As reflected in various etymological dictionaries and studies (e.g. in BER 6:
243 ff., with a complete list of references; ESJS 13: 786, s.v. ryba), Slavic ryba has
been analyzed from various perspectives and various origins have been sug-
gested. Unfortunately, the etymon remains enigmatic. The various associations
with other roots are mainly unconvincing. Is there possible to suggest a more
convincing solution? Are there the ‘more convincing’ candidates for a possible
relationship, allowing to reconstruct the initial meaning of the root *RaB-,
*RoB-, *RuB-? We should equally remove from the list those forms which, even if
sharing the same root, are obviously not related, they are simple homonyms as
a result of hazard, not an initial etymological relationship. This is, for example,
the series represented by Latin rubius ‘red’, which cannot be related to ryba, and
vice-versa. Nor can river-name Rubicon be related to ryba, unless we admit that
root rub- is not connected to the semantic sphere ‘red’, as currently accepted.
But the origin of Rubicon is not of primary interest here; it may be considered
some time later, though. Latin had another root rob- with the meaning ‘oak’ and
‘force’ – robur. This often happens in the etymological analysis, therefore it is
safe to reject a possible initial relationship with these Latin forms.
But what the initial meaning may have been? To what semantical sphere
was a fish connected to? Definitely not to color, as fish may have various colors.
To form? This seems most probable, especially if we have a look at how most
fish look like: they have curvilinear forms. This is what I postulated several
years ago, upon the first attempt to try possible related forms to Slavic ryba.
Archaic languages did contain, in fact words related to simple data, nouns
and adjectives, and probably little abstract meanings. Therefore, as a starting
point, I assumed that archaic meaning of the Pre-IE root *RaB-, *RoB-, *Rub-
 302 must have been related to an obvious depictive feature, frequently encoun-
Paliga tered when attempting to reconstruct the archaic meanings of prehistoric
roots. The association of various fish with the curvilinear forms is obvious,
e.g. these examples of Czech heraldry (after Zenger 1978: 62 and 151).
Starting from this observation, we may postulate
that the initial meaning of the Pre-IE root *R-B- must
have been ‘curved, rotund; curvilinear; round, roun-
ded; wheel.’ If we admit this reconstruction, the next
step would be to identify other possibly related forms.
– One may be the obscure Latin adjective rūbidus,
which seems to interfere with the meaning ‘red’, but
which cannot be the initial meaning, but ‘rotund,
curved’ as in [video] ampullam rubidam as we read in
Ernout – Meillet 2001: 578.
– Another series of related candidates is represent-
ed by some river names, which would be consistent
with other parallels like the name of the carp (similar
forms in all the European languages) and the name of
the Carpathians, beyond any doubt a Pre-IE mountain-
name (related to the name of the island Karpathos).
Raba, Slovene form, is one such possible example;
German Raab; Hungarian Rába, a river flowing at the border of Slovenia, Hun-
gary and Austria. There is another river Raba in Poland, a tributary of Wisła
and a river Rebra in Romania. For the German form of the river-name Raab, see
Greule 2014: 421, with a different etymological explanation, from IE *rebh-, *rebh-
‘sich (heftig) bewegen’, quoting some related forms, if starting from this etymon.
The following two candidates are in Romanian and may lead to longer dis-
cussions (see also the Addenda).
– One such candidate is roabă ‘a wheelbarrow’, a simple and archaic tool
used in everyday life of any traditional society. It has been considered either
of unknown origin or of substratum origin (Paliga 2006: 169). Doubts regard-
ing its substratum origin were expressed because of intervocalic -b-, which
is lost in any Romance element. The situation of intervocalic -b/v- in the Ro-
mance elements of Romanian is not, in fact, an issue of early Romanian, but of
Post-Classical Latin. The very presence of other substratum forms like abur,
Albanian avull is the clear proof that -b- is entirely normal in roabă as well.
Therefore, the presence of intervocalic -b- cannot be an argument. If we admit
an old origin, then its initial meaning must have been ‘wheel’, the association
between ‘wheel’ and ‘wheelbarrow’ being obvious in the terminology specific
to some languages, like English wheebarrow and Czech kolečko, which literally 303
is the diminutive form of kolo ‘wheel.’ Paliga
It seems that the history of wheelbarrows in southeast Europe has not been
a preoccupation of the archaeologists in this area of Europe. In change, there
are well documented studies regarding the old wheelbarrows identified in
other cultures of the Near East (McNeil 1990, mainly the introduction for a
brief history of prehistoric technology, also p. 158 and 947; for Ancient Greece,
see Stefanidou and Skordoulis in Katsiampoura, ed. 2014: 642). There is a good
study on wheels and terrestrial transportation in prehistory and protohistory
in the southeast Europe (Schuster 2007, in Romanian), which may be consid-
ered a rare approach to the topic from the archaeological perspective.
To note that, strictly formally, Rom. roabă is also the feminine form of rob
‘slave, serf ’, which adds confusion to an already difficult word to analyze. But,
once at this point, one more step:
– In Romanian, there is another candidate, the verb a răbda ‘to endure, to
suffer’, with the initial, postulated meaning ‘curved back’, i.e. someone’s back
curved, bent by a heavy burden or sufferance, like hard work (Paliga 2006:
165). If my interpretation is correct, then the Pre-IE root *R-B- (*RaB-, *RoB-,
*RuB-) has been preserved in two substratum words of Romanian: roabă ‘a
wheelbarrow’, with the initial meaning ‘a wheel’, i.e. ‘curved, round’, shifted to
the device after the Roman conquest, when rota > roată has become the usual
word); and the verb a răbda ‘to suffer, to endure’ < ‘to have one’s back curved
by a heavy burden or by sufferance.’
But the Romanian verb a răbda opens another discussion: the origin of Slav-
ic rabъ, robъ ‘a serf ’, also preserved in various words with the basic meaning
‘to work (hard), to make’, e.g. Slovak robiť ‘to make’, Polish robić ‘to make’ and
Czech vy-rábět ‘to produce, to manufacture’ etc. (see the situation of rabъ in
Old Church Slavonic in ESJS 12: 743). The problem is that, if we admit a relation
with Rom. a răbda ‘to endure’ i.e. ‘to have one’s back curved under a burden’,
then the whole series of explanations of this Slavic root, with metathesis of
the group *or, from IE *orbh- ‘to abandon; abandoned; an orphan’ must be aban-
doned as well! I am afraid this will not be an easy task².
– In Thracian, another candidate may be the place-name Roubousta ( Ῥου-
βοῦστα), as in Dečev 1957: 404, explained as either akin to Latin robustus or to
another forms like the ethnic name Rubustini in Apulia. The meaning cannot
be reconstructed, but we may add the otherwise obscure Romanian personal
(family) name Ruba, unexplained so far.
2 This association was invoked during the discussions in the symposium by our colleague
Mariola Jakubowicz.
 304 At this point, I think we may infer that (1) an archaic, Pre-IE root R-B- (*RaB-,
Paliga *RoB-, *RuB-) with the reconstructable meaning ‘curve(d), a wheel’ may be iden-
tified, and that (2) at least Slavic ryba ‘fish’, initial meaning ‘curvilinear being’,
derives from this archaic root. It is perhaps better than referring to only Ger-
man -raupe as referred to by Machek. The situation of the German form may
be an occasion for other discussions, though. Anyway, the relation with ryba
may be at least debatable, even if Machek says that this relation is nepochybné.
Certainty and uncertainty are relative in the etymological analysis, as in sci-
ence, in general (on this topic, see the discussion in Durkin 2009: 248; 279; 287).
The forms derived from the reconstructed root *R-B- ‘round, curve, curvi-
linear; wheel’, hence later ‘fish’ (i.e. with curvilinear, rotund forms) cannot be
of IE origin, they rather reflect an archaic, Pre-IE substratum. As often in the
comparative analysis, these forms interfere with other forms of other origins,
the ones derived from the IE root with the meaning ‘red’ and ‘robust, vigorous;
oak.’ Hazard (homonyms), interferences and folk etymology are parts of the
beautiful story of etymology, though. Fish was anyway an essential component
of pre-historic, proto-historic and classical cuisine (e.g. Thurmond 2006: 222 ff.)

A larger horizon: perspectives

In our view and attempting a further step towards a more coherent analysis,
there are 7 basic issues in this analysis (or in any similar attempt). In this
brief study, we dealt with mainly the first issue, but the other ones are also
important. These may be approached in a larger and more complex analysis.
Linguistic issues
1 Defining the linguistic groups in prehistory, and attempting to make a
connection with the archaeological finds; the relations between the Nostratic
or Proto-Boreal or Euro-Asiatic groups, on the one hand, and the non-Indo-
European (‘Mediterranean’ or UR-group) of southeast Europe, corresponding
to the ‘Neolithic revolution.’
2 The relations between the IE group, taken as a whole, and Uralic-Altaic
group, also taken as a whole, including a similar satem ~ centum dichotomy;
these are labeled Nostratic theories or theories of Nostratic type: Proto-Boreal
(N. D. Andreev) or Euro-Asiatic (Joseph Greenberg); they essentially consider
an archaic, initial relationship of languages spread over a considerable area
of the Euro-Asiatic space and, not excluded, still farther.
3 The relations within the IE groups; is the dichotomy centum ~ satem rele-
vant? To note a similar dichotomy in the Uralic field, e.g. Finnish and Estonian
(centum-type) v. Hungarian (satem type).
 4 The earliest borrowings from IE into Proto-Uralic-Altaic (a newer, differ- 305
ent issue from #2, see Parpola 2004); Paliga
Social, technological and administrative issues
5 Archaeometallurgical skills developed in the wake of the ‘Neolithic revo-
lution; more refined archaeometallurgical skills developed later, once the
bronze technology was controlled;
6 Horse domestication; its impact upon mobility; horse domestication and
weaponry; the world of warriors. The role of wheel in developing vehicles
used in battles.
Others
7 DNA analysis.

In this modest attempt, I just tried to find some possible related forms to Slavic
ryba (and, possibly, to Old Slavic rabъ, robъ). Slavic ryba must be an indig-
enous form, preserved from the Neolithic idioms or, perhaps, borrowed in an
unknown, prehistoric moment from a neighboring, more southern language.
Another archaic form preserved in the Proto-Slavic vocabulary seems to be
also baran, beran ‘a ram.’ Perhaps not by hazard, both refer to beings, essential
for the archaic people to survive. A third word, *tъrgъ, trъgъ, even if perhaps
of the same Pre-IE origin, must be considered a new-comer in the archaic
Slavic vocabulary (see above). Future investigations will probably enrich our
knowledge, enlarge this list and correct current mistakes.
This is in full accordance with the archaeological investigations: the ‘Neo-
lithic revolution’ started in the Fertile Crescent, in eastern Anatolia, and then
migrated west, east, north and south after the 8th millennium BCE It reached
southeast Europe around the beginning of the 7th millennium BCE, and con-
tinued its advance towards the Adriatic, Carpathians and to the Mediterranean
area. We must admit that the advancement of the Neolithic revolution was
accompanied by human migrations as well, not only by dissipating know-how.
The Pre-IE linguistic stratum must correspond to the Neolithic and Chalco-
lithic cultures, the creators of which spoke specific languages, conventionally
labeled ‘Mediterranean’ or ‘Pre-Indo-European.’
As these labels are, to a large extent, vague and unclear, I once suggested
another label, ‘UR linguistic groups’ or the ‘UR-groups’ or ‘Urbian groups’, i.e.
those idioms, for which we may identify forms witnessing the existence of
a root *OR-, *UR- with the reconstructed meaning ‘big, huge; high ~ deep.’ In
Paliga 1992 I dared suggest that there are ‘Urbian’ elements in Slavic – in Slo-
vene the syntagma used was urbske prvine. It is true that the analysis of the
Pre-IE substratum has not been relevant over the last decades, the linguists
 306 have seemingly concentrated on the ‘Nostratic’ and ‘Nostratic-like’ theories I
Paliga mentioned at the beginning of this study. For the time being, we must refer to
the investigations of the Pre-IE substratum of the interwar period, the 1950’s
and the first part of the 1960’s. They should be resumed, updated and now cor-
roborated with newer data in the field of comparative grammar.

Addenda

I If we admit that the initial Pre-IE root was *R-B- (*RaB-, *RoB-, *RuB-), we
may then refer to the forms alternating b and m, therefore *R-M-. I attempted
a similar approach for the river-names Rima (Hungary) and Rimava (Slova-
kia), related with Rama, a tributary of Neretva in Bosnia on the occasion of
the Etymologické symposion in 2002 (see Paliga 2003). The series Rama/Rima/
Rimava is, in my interpretation, akin to the forms derived from the root *R-B-
(*RaB-, *RoB-, *RuB-). But this may also be another topic for discussions, this
is just a note.

II The discussion regarding the wheelbarrows in history seems more com-

plicated than it seems, even if we have clear evidence that wheels had been
discovered and used in the Neolithic or Chalcolithic periods. The studies avail-
able to us seem to have concentrated on the role of wheels used for military
purposes, to which more studies have been dedicated (see Schuster 2007 for
a good analysis of the situation in southeast Europe – in Romanian; McNeil
1990, the Introduction, makes a brief and most useful discussion regarding
wheels in prehistory).
Referring to Rom. roabă ‘wheelbarrow’ < ‘wheel’, the discussion extends to a
quite complicated equation of the possible relationship with Slavic ryba ‘fish’,
but also with rabъ, robъ ‘a serf ’, from which Rom. rob (masculine) and roabă
(feminine) ‘male-serf ’ and ‘female-serf ’ respectively are explained. Is there a
direct connection between roabă ‘wheelbarow’ and also the feminine of rob ~
roabă? This seems hazard, but some may counter-argue that a wheelbarrow
may be seen as a serf, i.e. as a device for hard work. This is perhaps why DEX
records the form roabă as ‘et. nec.’, i.e. etimologie necunoscută, unknown ety-
mon. But the syntagma ‘et. nec. in DEX’ requires a longer debate.

References

BER: Bălgarski etimologičen rečnik, 1–7–, Sofia 1971–2010–.

Dečev 1957: Dečev, D., Die thrakischen Sprachreste, Wien.
DEX: dexonline.ro [A collection of dictionaries of Romanian, beginning with the one, 307
which gives the name of the site, Dicționarul explicativ al limbii române, known as DEX: Paliga
Dicţionarul explicativ al limbii române. Ed. I. Coteanu, L. Seche, M. Seche, Bucureşti 1975.]
Durkin 2009: Durkin, P., The Oxford Guide to Etymology, Oxford.
Ernout – Meillet 2001: Ernout, A. – Meillet, A., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine.
Histoire des mots. Retirage de la 4e édition augmentée d’additions et de corrections par
Jacques André, Paris.
ESJS: Etymologický slovník jazyka staroslověnského, 1–17–, Praha 1989–2008, Brno 2010–2014–.
Greule 2014: Greule, A., Deutsches Gewässernamenbuch. Etymologie der Gewässernamen und
der dazugehörigen Gebiets-, Siedlungs- und Flurnamen. Unter Mitarbeit von Sabine Hackl-
-Rößler, Berlin – Boston.
Katsiampoura 2014: Katsiampoura, G. (ed.), 5th International Conference of the European Soci-
ety for the History of Science. Scientific Cosmopolitanism and Local Cultures: Religions, Ideolo-
gies, Societies. Proceedings. Athens, 1–3 November 2012, Athens.
Kiss 1997: Kiss, L., A földrajzi nevek etimológiai szótára, I: A–K, II: L–Zs, Budapest.
Machek 1971: Machek, V., Etymologický slovník jazyka českého, Praha.
McNeil 1990: McNeil, I. (ed.), An Encyclopaedia of the History of Technology, London – New
York.
Paliga 1989: Paliga, S., Old European, Pre-Indo-European, Proto-Indo-European. Archaeo-
logical Evidence and Linguistic Investigation. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 17,
309–334.
Paliga 1992: Paliga, S., Ali obstajo ‘urbske’ prvine v slovanskih jezikih? Slavistična revija 40,
309–313.
Paliga 1998: Paliga, S., A Pre-Indo-European Lexicon. In: Roman, P. – Diamandi, S. – Alexianu,
M. (eds.), The Thracian World at the Crossroads of Civilizations. Bucureşti, 657–664.
Paliga 2003: Paliga, S., Some Archaic Place-Names in Czech and Slovak. In: Janyšková, I. –
Karlíková, H. (eds.), Studia etymologica Brunensia 2, Praha, 433–448.
Paliga 2006: Paliga, S., Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian,
Bucureşti.
Paliga 2013: Paliga, S., Influențe romane și preromane în limbile slave de sud. București.
Parpola 2004: Parpola, A., The Nāsatyas, the chariot and Proto-Aryan religion. Journal of
Indological Studies 16–17, 1–83.
Rejzek 2001: Rejzek, J., Český etymologický slovník, Voznice.
Schuster 2007: Schuster, C., Transportul terestru în preistorie, cu privire specială la Dunărea de
Jos, Târgoviște.
Skok 1950: Skok, P., Slavenstvo i romanstvo na jadranskim otocima. Toponomastička ispitivanja,
Zagreb.
Thurmond 2006: Thurmond, D. L., A Handbook of Food Processing in Classical Rome. Techno-
logy and Change in History, volume 9, Leiden – Boston.
Zenger 1978: Zenger, Z. M., Česká heraldika, Praha.

Znovu k předindoevropskému substrátu. Praslovanské dědictví a jeho pozůstatky.

Článek se zabývá problémem indoevropského a neindoevropského dědictví na území
Evropy. Slovanské ryba ‘ryba’ se spojuje s hydronymem Raba, rumunskými slovy roabă
‘kolečko, trakař’ (← ‘kolo’) a a răbda ‘snášet, trpět’ (← ‘mít ohnutá, zakřivená záda pod těžkým
břemenem’) a slovanským rabъ, robъ ‘otrok’. Odtud je rekonstruován předindoevropský
kořen *R-B- ‘kulatý, okrouhlý, zakřivený; ohýbat se.’

Sorin Paliga • sorin.paliga@gmail.com

Universitatea din București, Facultatea de Limbi și Literaturi Străine
Str. Pitar Moș 7–13, 70151 București, România