Gypsy categories of men: lexicon and attitudes

Gypsy categories of men: lexicon and attitudes Werner Cohn1 Abstract The paper addresses itself to the problem of how Gypsy attitudes relate to Gypsy vocabulary. Gypsy attitudes toward ten categories of men are explored by studying reactions of informants to 13 hypothetical situations in an interview. Using aSmallest Space Analysis, the results of the interview yield aclustering of the categories of men. These clusters are then compared to those which would have been predicted on the basis of the Gypsy lexicon. Keywords: Gypsies, folk taxonomy, smallest space analysis This paper seeks to throw some new light on Gypsy life by addressing itself to aproblem of language-and-culture: the extent to which categories of thought and behavior might correspond to categories named by the lexical apparatus of the language. Partly because the study was conceived within amore general interest in how and why Gypsies maintain their separation from others, it deals with the domain of categories of men. I. Gypsies are originally migrants from India who have by now lived among European peoples for several centuries. They have inspired aconsiderable popular literature, but scholarly treatments are relatively few and meagre (but see references listed in Cohn 1969; 1970). There are noteworthy differences between the various Gypsy groups, both linguistically and considering style of life. While almost all groups have retained at least some vestige of the Indic Gypsy language, some— particularly the Gypsies of Great Britain and Spain— have drastically altered this language in the direction of the language of the country. But this cannot be said of the North American Gypsies, whose linguistic integrity, demonstrated particularly by the inflected nature of their language, is stronger than that of most European groups. Moreover, the style of life of these Rom (“Gypsies”) sets them apart from their non-Gypsy neighbors more clearly than is the case in many European instances. It is these North American Rom who form the subject matter of this article. (For previous work on these people, see the references cited above; the most comprehensive is still that of Cotten, 1950). 1 Iam most grateful to Milton Bloombaum for many helpful suggestions, and to Mrs. Gale LePitre for clerical assistance. OPEN ACCESS 14 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2018 II. The procedures of this study may be outlined as follows: 1. The basic terms which Gypsies use to characterize men, and the relationships among these terms, were learned in the course of regular field work and general language-learning over aperiod of several years. In addition, three more formal procedures were employed. The first consisted of arequest from my principal informant for “alist of the various kinds of people that there are“ for purposes of an interview schedule. (The results are the numbered terms of Table I). The second procedure was arequest made of twelve other informants, as part of the interview schedule, to supply further terms of the same sort. Finally, these results were discussed and worked through with asecond principal informant. The presentation below (Section III) is the result of all these procedures. 2. Together with the first principal informant, thirteen social situations were formulated which are believed to be representative of occasions on which differential attitudes toward various categories of men come into play. These situations are discussed in Section IV (below), and, for convenience, they are also listed in the Appendix together with aglossary of the Gypsy terms employed in this paper. 3. Aformal interview was conducted with atotal of thirteen Gypsy informants in four North American cities (Vancouver, B.C., Montreal, New York, and Seattle). All the informants were adults, ten were men, three women. All were perfectly bi-lingual in Gypsy and English, and the typical interview was conducted in amixture of the two languages (which is how younger Gypsies frequently converse with one another). Eight of the interviews were conducted by myself, the other five by Mr. Larry Lutzker of New York, asocial worker who has had extensive contacts with the Gypsies of that city. Most of the interviews which Iconducted myself were tape-recorded, and many were later discussed with my principal informant. The heart of the interview schedule consisted of 130 questions, relating each of the ten categories of men to each of the thirteen situations. The first question which each informant was asked was “Would you allow the matSvaia [one of the Gypsy ‘tribes’] to go to akris [internal Gypsy ‘court’]?” He was next asked the same question for all the other nine categories of men. After this, he was asked aquestion concerning the second situation about each of the categories, and so on for atotal of thirteen situations and ten categories, resulting in 130 questions. Not all informants answered all questions. In particular, the question about the pomana (‘feast for the dead’) proved to be too depressing for some elderly informants, and some younger informants felt themselves to be insufficiently familiar with one or two categories to venture opinions. The questioning was always preceded by the introduction “Now Iam going to ask you awhole lot of questions, which can generally be answered with either yes, no, or maybe. I’d like you to try very hard always to come up with yes, no, or maybe.” Occasionally, arespondent would say “yes” with what seemed to be aquestion mark in his voice. The interviewer would then discuss with him whether “maybe” might not express his feelings better. The respondent usually agreed to this suggestion in such OPEN ACCESS WERNER COHN 15 cases, but it was always the informant’s judgement which was entered as the final answer and which was used for the analysis of the results. These results, which constitute our findings of Gypsy attitudes toward categories of men, are reported in Section V.Section Vas well as Section VI consider the extent to which these differential attitudes coincide with the linguistic categories described in Section III. III. An overview of the lexemes2 of Gypsy categories of men is presented in TableI. They can be seen to form ataxonomy with the following properties: with one exception (Box C), each taxon is labelled by asingle lexeme, and each lexeme is restricted to asingle taxon.3 The terms are grouped into atotal of five boxes. There are two levels of contrast, which provide us with aconvenient organization for our discussion. TABLE I.Gypsy Categories of Men — Overview * Here and throughout this paper, English glosses for Gypsy terms are given in single quotes, while Gypsy terms themselves are given in italics. ** The terms shown in boxes B, C and D appeared on the interview schedule in the order indicated by the numerals preceding them here. These numbers also serve to identify the terms on Figure I ( below). *** Terms 8 and 9 are synonymous in this context. See text. 2 “Any utterance whose signification does not follow from the signification and arrangement of its parts we shall hereinafter call alexeme.“ (Goodenough, 1956: 199). See also Conklin 1962: 121. 3 „Taxon“ refers to acategory in ataxonomy, while alexeme is alabel which may (or may not) be applied to it, Cf. Black, 1969:179. TABLE I * Gypsy Categories of Men — Overview A C D E ‘Gypsies’ ‘Half-breeds’ ‘Outsiders’ ‘Orthodox-Christian’ ‘Jews’ ‘Blacks’ ‘Chinese’ * Here and throughout this paper, English glosses for Gypsy terms are given in single quotes, while Gypsy terms themselves are given in italics. ** e terms shown in boxes B, C and D appeared on the interview schedule in the order indicated by the numerals preceding them here. ese numbers also serve to identify the terms on Figure I (below). *** Terms 8 and 9 are synonymous in this context. See text. ** ** *** — — — — [others] I Rom 8. boiaS 9. gipsuria 10. gaZe B1. matSvaia 2. kalderaS 3. Rusulia 4. minierSti 5. meksikaia 6. kinierSti 7. boiaS ** [other ‘tribes’] — — — — ‘tribes’ (vitsi) II OPEN ACCESS 16 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2018 First Level The distinction between “Gypsy” and “Outsider” plays avery important role in ordinary conversation. Unless one considers comparatively unusual words, there are no neutral terms for „man“: one must specify whether one talks about aGypsy or anonGypsy (cf. Cohn, 1969:477–8). These terms are shown, respectively, in Boxes Aand D of Table I. This distinction is probably the most fundamental and culturally important of all the distinctions discussed in this paper. Box C represents the only instance in this system in which we have acategory without aclear-cut single term. In some contexts, Gypsies talk about boiaS as people originally from Rumania, with some Gypsy “blood”, leading aGypsy style of life, but unable to speak the Gypsy language. Gipsuria, in corresponding contexts, are thought of as people originating in Great Britain, having pretensions of being Gypsy, leading astyle of life in some way similar to that of the Rom, but differing sharply from them as evidenced by their inability to speak the Gypsy language properly. But in ordinary conversation these two terms are confounded and used synonymously to refer to people who are somehow, but not quite, Gypsy. One woman, for instance, whose background is doubted because she is thought of as having non-Gypsy „blood,“ was described to me by the same informant at one time as being boiaS, but at another time as one of the gipsuria. It is for such reasons that Iinterpret Box C as representing asingle, essentially residual category of men, named in the Gypsy language by either of two synonymous terms both of which Igloss “Half-breed.” Second Level There are no sub-divisions for “Half-breeds,” asituation which the foregoing may already have led us to expect. On the other hand, Box E shows sub-divisions among “Outsiders,” but these are not very important in Gypsy conversation or Gypsy life. Serbian and Greek Orthodox Christians are sometimes singled out as knowing more about religious festivals than others, some Gypsy rituals being similar to those of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Blacks are sometimes given special attention because of their reputed greater susceptibility to fortune telling. Jews, often termed “Unbaptized” (bibolde), are frequently perceived according to common North American stereotypes, as are Blacks and other minorities. The subdivisions among Gypsies which are listed in Box B are referred to as vitsi (singular vitsa), which Igloss here as “tribes.” These particular categories of men play avery large role in the day-to-day life of Gypsies, and need to be considered in some detail. The Gypsy word vitsa comes into this dialect from the Rumanian vita, which may be glossed as 1) “vine plant”, and 2) “branch”, “family”, “race”, “line of ancestry”. The second group of glosses seems to circumscribe fairly accurately the semantic space occupied by this term in certain Gypsy contexts. For instance, one of my informants used the term in talking about talent for violin playing, which, he thought, had come to aboy through his vitsa, i.e. through his family background. However, there is amore common meaning attached to vitsa in ordinary Gypsy conversation, and it is in this context that Gypsies themselves often translate the OPEN ACCESS WERNER COHN 17 term by “tribe.” In making either complimentary or disparaging comments about other Gypsies, reference is very frequently made to vitsa. It was in this sort of context that my first principal informant produced the list of vitsi of Box B. (This list, by the way, in no way exhaust the vitsi known to North American Gypsies. In discussing the vitsa of any given individual, informants will frequently volunteer other terms, sometimes borrowing from European Gypsy traditions. In the present study, each of the informants was asked for additional vitsi, i.e. vitsi which did not appear on the interview schedule. Most of them were able to produce two or three additional ones.) Which vitsa does aman belong to? At the end of the interview schedule, each informant was asked with which vitsa he would identify himself. All were able to answer with asingle term (These self-identifications are reported and discussed in Section V, below). But identifications of this sort, either of self or of others, are to some extent unstable. Iam at the moment involved in astudy of genealogies, discussing various family linkages with my present principal informant. In this context, in which agreat deal of thought is given to vitsa affiliations, almost nobody is identified as belonging unambiguously to asingle vitsa. Even in casual conversation with Gypsies, it occurs much more frequently than not that aperson will say “On my father’s side Iam such-and-such, but on my mother’s Iam so-and-so.“ If the conversational setting allows, further details are added through discussion of grandfathers, grandmothers, and the various affiliations of the informant’s spouse. Certain aspects of the context of the conversation seem to determine the complexity of vitsa identifications: if the context calls for aquick reply, asingle vitsa name can be given; if the context is more leisurely, there will be more complexity. Afurther determinant of self-identification has to do with the particular relationship aspeaker has to another person. My former principal informant, for instance, habitually spoke of himself as amatSvano, unless he happened to discuss certain Gypsies in another town whom he did not particularly care for, and who are generally known as matSvaia. When these people figured in the conversation, my informant would refer to himself as akalderaS. As we shall see below, vitsa distinctions are also associated with certain differences in dialect. In discussing the vitsa identification of aparticular individual, for instance, Irecently indicated surprise to my informant at the judgement he expressed. „But Ithought that X is amatSvano,“ Isaid. My informant then explained to me that Imust have gained this impression from the person’s pronunciation, and added that this is avery valid way of dealing with the problem of vitsa identification. But if one looked into it more, he said, if one examined the family tree of the individual concerned, one would be inclined to identify him with adifferent vitsa. Despite these difficulties and perplexities, Gypsies do make vitsa identifications habitually, confidently, and unambiguously. It is only when they are confronted with the ambiguity of contrasting criteria (and this can happen in spontaneous conversation) that complexity enters. But this complexity must not lead to the conclusion that avitsa identification is ever haphazard. Certain vitsa identifications are held to be impossible for any given individual. In the case of my principal informants, for instance, there is no way in which they could relate themselves— through family, OPEN ACCESS 18 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2018 language, marriage, or any other way— to either the bimburia or the meksikaia; Ihave never heard them identify themselves as such in any situation, nor have Iheard them so identified. This would be considered altogether preposterous. Since the major aim of this study is to compare the distinctions made in attitudes with the distinctions made in the lexicon, an attempt was made to discover lexical distinctions which would group the vitsi in amanner corresponding to the distinctions in attitude. (As we shall see in Section V, below, no such correspondence could be established.) In talking about the various vitsi, Gypsies often volunteer opinions concerning differential attributes of these categories. These attributes may be classified into a) those which can be described but not named by discrete lexemes; and b) those which do correspond to discrete lexemes. Only the latter group need concern us for our present purposes, but afew remarks about the former may help to provide insight into how vitsi are seen by the native speakers. Any leisurely discussion with aGypsy about the attributes of the various vitsi will elicit awealth of evaluative material. Obvious reasons prevent me from identifying the groups to which the following descriptions have been applied, but Ican list the views of one informant as follows: Vitsa X is particularly rich; vitsi Y and Aare very dirty, God is to be thanked for not making him one of theirs; vitsi X and Zare particularly good at parties, their people are wonderful dancers and singers; vitsi Aand D are known to consist of pickpockets and gangsters; the women of vitsi Aand B can make much more money than others in fortune telling; vitsa C is particularly strict in making young daughters-in-law toe the line. There is undoubtedly variation among Gypsies in such opinions, but on the other hand these views are more common and less idiosyncratic than one might expect. (They largely coincide, also, with my own observations of members of the vitsi concerned). But this material is not part of the lexical system with which we are here concerned; it is something to be kept in mind in interpreting the attitudes to be examined in Section V, below. We come now to the only lexemes which Ihave been able to discover as capable of grouping vitsi. They fall into two sets of contrasts: a. The distinction between “travelling” (dromeske) and “sedentary” (thaneske) Gypsies. To an outside observer, this distinction is very relative, since all North American Gypsies do agreat deal of travelling, while at the same time settling for longer or shorter periods in the principal cities. But there are some people who seem to be on the move all the time (frequently using airplanes instead of the wagons of their forebears), while other people have more of atendency to return to agiven city. My present principal informant grouped the vitsi in accordance with this distinction, placing two of them into an intermediary category of having both “travelling” and “sedentary” members. The resulting grouping may be read on the paradigm presented as Table II. OPEN ACCESS WERNER COHN 19 TABLE II.‘Tribes’ as Grouped by Lexemes b. Dialect differences. As we have already indicated, there are certain differences in dialect which are associated with differences among the vitsi. (It is customary among Gypsy scholars to group all the variations which we discuss here into what is known as the vlax [from Wallachia, aRumanian region] dialect, and from that point of view these distinctions would be spoken of as sub-dialects.) My informant calls these different dialects “languages” (Siba), although everyone understands everybody else perfectly, with only an occasional puzzlement or bit of amusement. These “languages” are named with terms derived from the names of three of the vitsi, as follows: matSvansko, Rusitska, kalderaSitska. The differences among these dialects are relatively minor, but involve both vocabulary and pronunciation. The first-named dialect has more loan words from Serbo-Croatian than the other two; the second-named has borrowed more from Russian. All three have borrowed very extensively from Rumanian. The differences in pronunciation may be illustrated with one of the few words— ‘understand’— which has adistinct form in each dialect: hatSarav, haliarav, hakiarav. It is quite usual for the same speaker to use more than one form on different occasions.4 Table II includes the manner in which my informant groups the vitsi by the ‘languages’ which they speak. (Again, one vitsa could not be clearly classified, and is shown in aspecial category as speaking two ‘languages.’) The paradigm indicates the ways in which Gypsy lexemes group vitsi. These groupings may now be compared with those formed by the attitudinal distinctions (Section V, below). 4 The best guide to this group of dialects is still Gjerdman and Ljungberg, 1963, which, however, does not indicate the dialect distinctions here discussed. The authors show the different forms as variants in their corpus. The emphasis in the book is on the pronunciation and vocabulary of what in North America would be called Rusitska among the Gypsies. For an authoritative description of avery closely related dialect, see Calvet, n.d. TABLE II ‘Tribes’ as Grouped by Lexemes Language(s) spoken Rusitska and kalderaSitska kalderaSitskaRusitskamatSvansko kinierSti bimburia meksikaia kalderaS minierSti RusuliamatSvaia ‘travelling’ ‘sedentary’ both ‘travelling’ and ‘sedentary’ OPEN ACCESS 20 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2018 IV. In this section, we shall very briefly discuss the hypothetical “situations” which were presented to the informants (they are listed again, with aglossary of Gypsy terms, in the Appendix; for adescription of the procedure of presenting them, see SectionII, above). 1. The Gypsy kris (“court”) is aspecial meeting of Gypsy men to settle disputes. It is perhaps the only institution of Gypsy society which might be called political in the sense of exercising authority beyond the confines of afamily. Ihave been greatly aided in understanding its traditional importance by the description in atale of the French Gypsy writer Maximoff (1946), and by further descriptions in the boyhood memoirs of Yoors (1967). In the opinion of my informants, the kris is now used primarily to settle disputes which frequently arise over bride-price. The kris is always regarded as an event of considerable gravity. 2. and 3.bori is a“daughter-in-law.” To “give” one’s daughter as abori to another man involves receiving aconsiderable bride-price, which under current conditions can range from about $2000 to about $8000. The bride-price practice is avery fundamental aspect of Gypsy culture, and many other features can only be understood in connection with it. (As we have already seen it is closely related to the kris.) Gypsies are not eager to “give” their daughters to just anyone; avery high bride-price, according to concerns frequently voiced, would not compensate for an unsuitable household for the girl to enter. (The girl usually, but not always, will live with her husband within the household of the husband’s father). In choosing adaughter-in-law, the considerations deal with such factors as the girl’s attractiveness, her knowledge of Gypsy ways, her skill in earning money at fortune telling, and the reputation of her whole family. (On “daughters-in-law,” cf. Cohn 1969: 478–81). 4. Aslava is afeast given in honor of asaint. It is one of several types of feasts which form such an important part of Gypsy life. Generally ahall is hired, considerable quantities of food are ceremoniously prepared and are consumed together with suitable quantities of alcoholic beverages. Gypsies will often say that all Rom are welcome to these events, and none in fact can easily be excluded. However, since aslava often develops into an arena in which antagonisms among Gypsies are played out— cutting remarks and fights are considered quite common— there is reluctance to go to the slave of antagonists, and an equal reluctance to publicize one’s own among unfriendly Gypsies. “Outsiders” can often be seen at slave; they are there by special invitation, and are invariably people tied to the Gypsies through one or another aspect of Gypsy business: policemen, used-car dealers, social workers. (Cf. Cohn 1970:6–10). The word slava, as well as some features of the practice, is borrowed from the Serbian. 5. and 6.kirvo means “godfather.” To be asked to become agodfather is an honor, but since godfatherhood establishes certain life-long obligations, as well as marriage taboos, Gypsies are often reluctant to enter into this relationship with one another. It is for this reason that non-Gypsies are often selected to perform this function for Gypsy infants, in which case no further obligations are recognized on the Gypsy side. 7. Apomana is afeast for the dead. The word, and features of the practice, are borrowed from the Rumanian. When aperson dies, asmall and somber wake (poOPEN ACCESS WERNER COHN 21 mana) is held for him after three days, another one, more elaborate, after six weeks, astill more elaborate one after six months, and agreat (though still somber) feast is held approximately ayear after death. There is some variation in the spacing of these feasts, and it is very common nowadays for the 6-months and the one-year pomani to be combined into asingle event. It is generally held among Gypsies that the more people who can attend these feasts the better, and there is much less fear of trouble than there is in the case of aslava. 8. Hospitality of Gypsies toward other Gypsies is generally taken as asacred obligation. AGypsy is also expected to visit other Gypsies, and expects to be served food and drink when he does. Some Gypsies hold that there is an obligation of hospitality even toward non-Gypsies. 9. Because of certain traditions of ritual purity, many Gypsies will not allow “Outsiders” to drink out of the cups which they themselves use. In certain cases, they even feel uneasy about letting Gypsies of unfriendly vitsi drink out of their cups. Most people have special cups in their homes for the use of non-Gypsy visitors. 10. Willingness to eat at someone’s house is often an indication, among Gypsies, of how much esteem this person is given. One has more choice in whom to visit than in whom to accept as avisitor. This situation again brings into play feelings toward ritual purity and ritual pollution. 11. and 12.Traditionally, Gypsies who arrive in agiven locality will ask those already established there for permission to engage in fortune telling. This situation sometimes involves considerable conflict and tension, since there are localities in which strongly-established Gypsies will resist newcomers. Very frequently, Gypsies will also see the need of establishing contacts with the local police in order to be able to carry on with fortune telling. When Question 11 was asked concerning “Outsiders”, it was almost invariably taken to mean the police. There are non-Gypsy and “Half-breed” fortune tellers, but these did not figure when this question was answered affirmatively by the informants. 13. One question in the interview schedule read „Would you call the [name of people] Rom [‘Gypsy’]?“. This question was used to check my understanding of the use of the terminology, to see how much unanimity there is in it, to see how it applies to “Half-breeds,” etc. (For answers to these questions, consult Table III). Some implications of including this question in the analysis will be discussed below in Section V. There can be no question but that the selection of these “situations” is in some ways arbitrary. Nevertheless, as will be shown in the next two Sections, at least some of these hypothetical situations revealed interesting relationships between terminology and attitude. V. Before discussing the results of the formal interview, it is important to consider how the informants identified themselves when asked, as part of the interview procedure, “Could Iask you which vitsa you yourself are in?” Responses were as follows: OPEN ACCESS 28 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2018 5. Become akirvo for. (“Godfather”) 6. Take akirvo from. (See above) 7. Allow to apomana. (“Feast for the dead”) 8. Extend hospitality to. 9. Let use regular cup. 10. Eat at house of. 11. Ask for permission to do business. 12. Give permission to do business. 13. Call Rom. (“Gypsy”) Other Terms vitsa (plural vitsi): “tribe” (Sub-group among Gypsies) gaZo (plural gaZe): “Outsider” (non-Gypsy) Other Gypsy terms in this article are proper names of vitsi. These terms originate either in occupational titles (kalderaS = “coppersmith”), putative places of origin, or proper names of ancestors. REFERENCES CITED Black, M.B. 1969. „Eliciting Folk Taxonomy in Ojibwa.” Pp.165–189 in Stephen A.Tyler (ed.). Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bloombaum, M. 1968. „Tribes and Traits: aSmallest Space Analysis of Cross-Cultural Data.” American Anthropologist 70: 328–330. Bloombaum, M. 1970. „Doing Smallest Space Analysis.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 14: 409–416. Calvet, G. n.d. Description d’un dialecte tsigane du Banat. These. Paris: Ecole Pratique des Hautes Études, IVe Section. Cohn, W. 1969. „Some Comparisons between Gypsy (North American Rom) and American English Kinship Terms.” American Anthropologist 71: 476–482. Cohn, W. 1970. „La persistance d’un groupe paria relativement stable: quelques reflexions sur les Tsiganes nord-américains.” Etudes Tsiganes 16 (2 et 3): 3–20. Conklin, H.C.1962. „Lexicographical Treatment of Folk Taxonomies.” Pp.119–141 In F.W. Householder, S.Saporta (eds.) Problems in lexicography. International Journal of American Linguistics 28 (2) Part II supplement, Publication 21.Bloomington: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore and Linguistics. Cotten, R.M. (now Rena C.Gropper) 1950. The Fork in the Road: AStudy of Acculturation among the Kalderas Gypsies. Ph.D. thesis. New York: Columbia University. Gjerdman, O., Ljungberg, E. 1963. The Language of the Swedish Coppersmith Gypsy Johan Dimitri Tailcon. Uppsala: A-B Lundequistska. Goodenough, W.H. 1956. „Componential Analysis and the Study of Meaning.” Language 32: 195–216. Maximoff, M. 1946. Les Ursitory. Paris: Flammarion. Yoors, J. 1967. The Gypsies. New York: Simon & Schuster. OPEN ACCESS WERNER COHN 29 ALIST OF WRITINGS OF WERNER COHN ON GYPSIES5 5 Full list of writings by W.Cohn up to 2009 available at: http://www.wernercohn.com/persbib.html. 6 http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/u_arch/cohn.pdf. 1969 “Some Comparisons Between Gypsy (North American rom) and American English Kinship Terms,” American Anthropologist, vol.71, no.3, pp.476–82. 1970 „La persistance d’un group paria relativement stable: quelques reflexions sur les tsiganes nord-américains,“ Etudes Tsiganes, vol.16, nos.2–3, pp.3–23. 1972 „Mariage chez les rom nord-américains: quelques conséquences du ‚prix de la mariée,“ Etudes Tsiganes, vol.18, no.2–3, pp.4–11. „Marko and Moso, AGypsy Tale from Canada told by Biga,“ Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, vol.51, nos.1–2, pp.13–27. 1973 The Gypsies, Addison-Wesley (available at: http://www.wernercohn.com/Resources/The_ Gypsies.pdf ). 1976 Review of „Gypsy Politics and Social Change,“ by Thomas Acton, Contemporary Sociology, vol.5, no.1, p.56. 1983 Marko und Moso, in: Zigeunermärchen aus aller Welt, Erste Sammlung, Heinz Mode, ed. InselVerlag, Leipzig, pp.156–61; [an abridged German translation of 1972b]. 1993 „The Myth of Gypsy Nationalism,“ Nationalities Papers, vol. XXI, no.2 (Fall 1993), pp.281–286; available at: http://www.wernercohn.com/ Gypsymyth.html 2007 Příbuzenská terminologie acena za nevěstu, in: Budilová, Lenka & Jakoubek, Marek /eds./— Cikánská rodina apříbuzenství, Plzeň: Vydavatelství anakladatelství Vlasty Králové / Dryada, 2007, str.193–198; [atranslation of chapters 6 a7 from 1973; translated by Marek Jakoubek]. 2008 Mýtus cikánského národnostního hnutí, in: Jakoubek, Marek (ed.), Cikáni aetnicita, Praha, Kroměříž: Triton, str.134–143; [atranslation of 1993; translated by Marek Jakoubek]. 2009 Cikáni, Sociologické nakladatelství (SLON); [atranslation of 1973; translated by Marek Jakoubek]. Werner Cohn (born 1926 in Berlin, Germany) is asociologist who has written on the sociology of Jews and of Gypsies, and political sociology. He is aProfessor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia. Werner Cohn received his BSS in Sociology from City College (New York) in 1951. He completed his MA (1954) and PhD (1956) at the New School for Social Research. He joined the University of British Columbia’s Department of Anthropology and Sociology in 1960 and remained there until taking early retirement in 1986. Cohn’s research focused on the sociology of Jews and small political movements. In particular, Cohn developed an interest in researching Gypsies. He began his research on this topic in 1966/67 during asabbatical in France. He continued with his studies of the Gypsy culture and language and returned to Europe meeting with Gypsy groups and with many well-known scholars of the Gypsies. Over the years Cohn wrote numerous articles on the Gypsies in various scholarly journals and in 1973 he wrote The Gypsies which summarized his findings in the field.6 6 OPEN ACCESS