Five years ago Vasilis Orfanos published an excellent monograph on the Turkish lexical borrowings attested in the Cretan dialect of Modern Greek (Orfanos 2014). In this paper the present authors increase the number of the possible Cretan Turkisms, providing and explaining additional items not listed in Orfanos’s book.
The purpose of this article is to show the function and frequency of Turkish loanwords in modern Croatian language based on a questionnaire survey. Respondents were diversified in age, gender nad origin. The subject of analysis were stylistically marked loanwords that have fallen victim to a puristic language policy pursued by the Croatian linguists in popular language guides, especially in the 1990s. As survey results show, these activities aimed at removing Turkish loanwords from Croatian languague proved to be ineffective. Most of these words are still being used by the Croats simultaneously with the native synonyms. Puristic view declared by some of the respondents does not affect the usage of the Turkish loanwords in unofficial situations.
Two types of names for ‘Turkish delight’ are known in the Slavic languages: rahat-lokum ~ ratluk, and lokum. Even though most etymological dictionaries derive them from the same Arabo-Turkish etymon, their different structures are not discussed and the phonetic differences not explained. The aim of this paper is to establish the relative chronology of changes made to the original phrase, as well as to point out some problems which still remain more or less obscure.
The article offers a revisited look at the classic jurisprudence of the ECtHR and CJEU concerning the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus from the perspective of the phenomenon of judicial dialogue. In this context, it aims to examine whether judicial dialogue contributes to the development of coherent jurisprudence and in consequence of effective judicial redress in cases involving unrecognised entities and individuals. It draws attention to the threats for both the international rule of law and the protection of rights of individuals resulting from inconsistencies within own jurisprudence of the respective court, as well as from lack of coherence in interpretation and application of the same rules of international law by different courts.