[tied] Re: Numerals query again

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

> In Rom. the things are a bit complicated due the short forms;

No, things are simple.

> the prep. "spre" given as deriving from Latin "super"

"given as" should be skipped in normal reading.

> means "toward", "to" ("english "to" is for me a bit too
> generalised and thus I would advice to see "spre" as "toward")

... but in first Daco-Romanian texts AND in counting, "spre"
is synonymous with "pe", meaning simply `(up)on`. As in Latin.

> Rom, literary:
> unsprezece (un-spre-zece), one-toward-ten
> doisprezece (doi-spre-zece), two-toward-ten
> treisprezece
> patrusprezece (*)
> cincisprezece (*)
> Saisprezece
> Saptisprezece
> Optisprezece
> nouãsprezece
>
> (*)there is no use of patrusprezece or cincisprezece.

I have nasty feelings when reading _bad_ Romanian. The dictionary
(literary ) forms recommended are "paisprezece" (14), "cincisprezece"
(15), "Saptesprezece" (17), "optsprezece" (18). Would-be-regular
forms "patrusprezece" (14) and "Sasesprezece" are hyperurbanisms,
they should be not used (though some uneducated employees still
use them very convinced, along with "una" instead of "o" - beurk!).
Written "cincisprezece" is practically never read as such, it gets
simplified in "cinsprezece" (but preserves the spelling).

"Saptisprezece" and "optisprezece" are simply bad Romanian forms,
justified by articulatory reasons but _very_ disturbing in regular
conversation. They should not be used.

> A. The numerals used by folk's mouth are in the shorted form

Of course. They're too long and pompous.

> SaptiSpe
> optiSpe

These are Alex' forms. Generally, there is no /i/ but a neutral
sonant (vowel) phonematically linked usually with /1/ which breaks
the horrific consonant group [(p)tS]. As alternative, one can just
throw away the [t] and get /SapSpe/ and /opSpe/ respectively.

> [...] at the first view one should say there are the shorted forms
> where people abandoned ( meanwhile I love this word) the "ten":
> unsprezece > unspre(zece)

The first thing to note is that stress does not fall on any of
the three final syllables, so all of these are in weak position,
being susceptible to be (partially) eliminated. The part "reze"
is thrown away, so one has (alive & kickin' in vernacular) "unspce"
[unsptSe] < "unsprezece". The articulation of [tS] is transferred
on the first [s] > [S] and that accounts for the second shortening
of the word.

> B. The reduction of "tru" arrise an another problem with it. As
> there is to see, the composition in the shorted manner but in the
> literary one too has there an "i" which I suppose is considered
> to be analogical by "four", "six", "seven" and "eight", forms
> "modeled" after "two" , "three" and "five".

Analogical for "paisprezece" and "Saisprezece", not for the other
two quoted above with a wrong form.

> My questions here are:
> -in fact how can be explained this reduction of "patru" to "pai"?

It's easier to pronounce. Stress on the first syllable (fifth
from the end) is pretty unusual, the best idea is to drop some
syllable. "i" is just a notation for a short [y] to account for
the dropped syllable (as diphthongue element, in [ay]). Analogy
might have also played some role.

> -why is this countig system considered a Slavic one since the Alb.
> presents the same way to count?

Because it's a translation loan from Slavic.

Marius Iacomi