Re: [tied] Re: Enclosed Places

g wrote:

>> The Romanian does not allow "sg" but "zg" ( as I ponted in another
>> message)
>
> This is not as dead-sure as you might think. Remember that
> up to April 1st, 1954, the Romanian official spelling was
> always with "s-" (and "des-") - even for the cases where
> the pronunciation was "z-" (and "dez-"). Cf. the latest
> "Indreptarul ortografic si ortoepic" by Sextil PuScariu and
> Teodor Naum, 1932ff. (And we should cf. older orthogr. habits,
> 19th c. and previous centuries.)

George, I try to be very quiet:-) I f... up the official spelling
established by I don't know what for inteligent or bad heads. I just
compare the way to speak and nothing more.This "sg"= phonetical
interdiction is is dead sure:-)

allowed= "sc" but not "sg"
allowed= "zg" but not "zc"

>
> (So, prior to April 1954, the official Romanian spelling was
> e.g. "sburãtorul, sgardã, sgârieturã, smeul smeilor, svârlugã".)

The oficial spelling has trouble of Latin "*exC" becoming an "zC".

>
>> The Schönheitsfehler would be the Alb. "k".
>
> Why? [g] is only a "stimmhaftes k," [k] is a mere "stimmloses g."
> So, it was possible that "once upon a time" the initial Romanian
> <zgarda> was <skarda>.
>
>> Alex
>
> George

No, no, let us be sachlich. There is a nice refugees to say " is a
stimmhaftes k". I don't accept it as so. There is a rulle, and I guess
Albanian has too the phonetical restriction as Rom has. If in Alb. the
phonetical restriction is "shg" then there _must_ be allowed "shk". And
if I am not wrong, then there is a very solide explanation for the
evolution of the word in both languages. I can search for myself for
this in Alb. but I thought Abdullah has the words in his head, though is
more simple for him to say " yes, shk= allowed and "shg"= not allowed",
at leas in the initial position.

Alex