Re: [tied] Re: a help for Piotr

On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:08:53 +0200, George S t a n a <gs001ns@...> wrote:

>>I don't think sandhi is an adequate explanation (there *is* a close tie
>>between
>>numeral and counted word, but the counted word follows: patru cânii is the
>>normal order, not cânii patru).
> >
>>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>
>Without a definite article: "patru câni" (since 1954 the standardized
>spelling: "câini"; betw. 1954-1992, "cîini"; I myself do not accept the
>diphtongation, since it is subdialectally limited only to a few counties
>in Southern Romania). The other way around the definite article is
>necessary, as well as a verb, e.g. "cânii sunt/erau patru".

Thanks. To clarify: I didn't mean to write a definite article. I was copying
from a source that had cîini.

Is sunt the current spelling for sînt (I am, they are)? [I noticed Vinereanu
writes sânt, because, apparently, he's privy to details about the conjugation of
the Daco-Thracian copula that nobody else knows about].

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...