> I pointed out that "huSti" means something else than you claim.
>There is no confusion from my part. There is no "huSte/huSti"
>in the dictionary thus you should not refer to it.
I don't know whether there is a subdialectal plural variant
<huSti>, but there is indeed a tendency, especially in the
Moldavian subdialects (and to a much lesser extent in Transyl-
vania and Banate, and, compared to them, almost none in
Muntenia) to builduing such plurals. For example, <cireSi>
instead of <cireSe>, <galuSti> instead of <galuSte> and many
others. Just pay attention to the vocabulary of your friends
and acquaintances who have esp. Mol dovan background. (For
example, a pal of mine, who is from various linguistics
points of view as bucharester as they come, i.e. many heavy
bucharest Romanian syncrasies, including the semivowel after
the [S], [aSja, Sjase, Sjapte, oraSj, mwoSj, kwoSj], well,
he uses the regional plurals above, that are not contained
in dictionaries. His mother's background is Southern Mol-
davian.)
Further such (chiefly Mold./Transylv.) plurals: <muSti>,
<albini> (e.g. [mjere d(e)albinj]) instead of <muSte>,
<albine> "flies, bees."
And the most popular... non-conformist plural is IMHO
<caSi> [k&Sj] for <case> [kase] "houses, homes". But this
one is pan-Romanian. It would however be a big mistake to
use it in the standard language. (E.g., during an interview,
for getting a job, your chances will tend to nil if you say
<c&$i> instead of <case>. :-))
>You know, when discussing linguistics, the rules of those
>scholars should be obeyed.
"Kadavergehorsam." :-)
>Marius
George