Re: [tied] Re: Nasal mp/np [Re: to buy]

tolgs001 wrote:

>> 2)I don't belive that the "m" before "p" is a gramatical
>> rule imposed by someone
>
> This is not a matter of "I believe/I don't believe",
> it's a matter of... RTFM

It is a matter. My grand mother was not to any school and for me this is
more prove as any idea of someone speaking about Rom. Lang. OK?

>> The "mp" sounds simply romanian
>
> In reality, there is no MP or NP. Instead, there
> is a nasalisation of the preceding vowel. But, since
> this phenomenon is way much weaker than in Polish and
> French and virtually insignifiant in Romanian, there
> is no rule in writing, neither in normative diction,
> nor do logopedic specialists deal with this, AFAIK
> So, feel free to pronounce cuMpara, and I can also
> feel free to "c<nasalised>upara". (Unfortunately, I
> am not able to give you bibliographic info pertaining
> to nasal phenomena in Romanian.)

1) there are phonetically restrictions in old words for "nC". You cannot
have groups like "nl", "nm", "np" "nr". The only exceptions are the
neologisms ( partly) and the compounded words as:
(nl) in+loc= inlocui, (nm)= in+multi= inmulti, (np)=?, in+radacina=
inradacina
2) there are not the same restrictions for "mC". Restricions are "mc",
"md", "mg","mj","ml","mr", "ms". The exceptions in compunded words and
neologism are here too.
You cannot change nC with mC as you like. I did not analysed too much
these restrictions, thus it can be some of them here which can be
wrong:-)

>
>> You say about "np" used in some subdialects.
>
> Where on earth do I state something like this?!

Well, you said as follow:

> Of course there is "-np"! In all ("daco-")Romanian
> subdialects, in reality, there's only one kind of
> occurrence: __the nasal plus P__.

And "n" seems to be nasal just sometimes, this is why I asked "which
one, m or n?"
Words like nana, dinu, pana, luna, have an "n" where it seems there is
no nasal compared with
words like pom, domn, puma,lume where there the "m" is indeed a nasal.

> I was talking about (and now please pay attention)
> A: pronunciation and writing by people with poor
> grammar training as well as dyslexic people; and
> B: the actual nasalisation, whereby there is no
> *real* M or N before the P.

I understand your point of view. But there is a big difference between
"m" and "n" and you can take a look at the restrictions I gave here for
"mC" and "nC" .

> Then I pointed out that, according to a grammar
> rule (especially for the written language), before
> P you have to use M. Using N before P will always
> be seen as a mistake. (This rule has been taught
> in Romanian elementary school for more than a
> century now.)

The difference here is just that I don't pay attention to what is
considered by some elite "mistake" and I pay attention just what seems
to sounds ok( ok= Romanian in this case) and what not. Of course my
opinion should be in some parts wrong:-)

> Of course you too were taught this rule in school
> The other thing, namely that Romanian also has
> nasals, such as those cases which we render in
> writing as NC, MP, NT, ND (adânc, împart, tont,
> blând), of course you've never heard of in school:
> it isn't mentioned in average grammar books. It's
> barely mentioned in linguistics works. Because,
> after all, these nasals practically don't matter in
> Romanian

Hmm, I guess I see where is your problem here. You did not payd
attention to the vocal before "n" here.
An "n" become palatalised ( in this case the socalled nasal "n") when
before it is an "â" or "ã", so one of the central wovels which are
making the "n" to sound nasal.
The second one where "n" sounds nasal is when after "n" follows a dental
like "t" and "d" and a siflant like "s" and "z"
Bont, flamand, plâns, mânz.
Când has this "nasal" "n" but "candela" doesn't. Cãni has , canã has it
a bit but caná (canea) hasn't it.

A very strange case is the negation "nn" which sounds like "n^n^", or
the word "mic" pronounced with a almost imposible to write group. " Am
vorbit cu aia n^ika" where mic= n^ik .

This is not the case for "m". This one, "m" is a real nasal, isn't it?
In so far it seems unlucky to say that there is neither "n" nor "m"
before a specific consonants but an indefinitely "nasal".

>> My grand mother was never to school but she spooked
>> too with "mp" and not with "np"
>
> The genuine and/or traditional pronunciation,
> including that by your granma, is with that nasal
> thing, which is neither M nor N.

I guess you see it now how I tried to explain. If not, explain please as
I did why "m" should be the same as "n"
None will say "câmpta" but "cânta". It speaks for itself there is a BIG
difference between 2m" and "n" I guess.

Alex