On Wed, Oct 1, 2003, at 08:01 PM, Richard wrote:
> The issue here is that it was given in
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18147 as
>
> '5) 6) 7) /é/, /ié/ and /o/ > /eá/, /ieá/, /oá/ before final -e and -
> a (but not -u); d(i)récta > dreaptã but d(i)réctu > drept.'
I for one don't see here any thing than the differentiation
caused by the feminine: drept -> dreapta. The same way
behave their... "parents": dirept, direapta [di-'rept,
di-'reap-ta] (these are now obsolete, but they haven't yet
disappeared from the (regional) vocabulary for good).
So, in Romanian there coexist the inherited dirept+drept
& the neologic direct -- direapta+dreapta & directa.
> The variants _$apte_ and _$epte_ are
And today's South-Romanian, especially a certain kind
of Bucharest Romanian fiercely has (for decades now) introduced
a [j] between the [S] and [Z] and the following vowel
as well as in situations where there's nothing following:
<$iase,> <$iapte> [Sja-se, Sjap-te], <ro$u> [ro-Sju],
<ora$> [o-raSj], <sãniu$> [s&-ni-'uSj], <tzepe$> ['tse-peSj],
<osta$> [os-taSj], <co$> [kwoSj] (note here the diphtongation
of the [o] => [wo], as in KuoMinTang :-), <pre$edintele
Bush> [buSj] - the latter 4 pronounced as though they
were... plurals! (To me, being from a region at about 650
km distance if by plane, this idiosincrasy is highly
unnerving, esp. since very spread in audio media: radio
and TV. Alex, by contrast, being from a region only a few
kilometers away from the... epicenter of the unnerving
source of radio-TV diction mores corruption, hasn't even
taken notice of the occurrence, I'd bet on this. ;-)
I must add though, that chroniclers used to write the
word <a$a> [a-Sá] "so, thus," also this way <a$ea> [a-Sea],
which is almost [a-Sja]; this could be a sign that the
phenomenon is actually old. (Perhaps very old, if I take
into consideration such Italian spellings as (Leonardo)
Sciascia. (How complex for a simple [Sa-Sa]!) :-))
> Richard.
George