Re: [tied] Re: Numerals query again

m_iacomi wrote:

>> the prep. "spre" given as deriving from Latin "super"
>
> "given as" should be skipped in normal reading.

Why?

>
>> 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.

well.. , you have to some fix ideas.


Not in the Manuscript of Ieud. Do you mean here the Evangheliar of
Coressi or PO/PS?

>> (*)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).

You don't neet to have nasty feelings. I use the words with "i" as the
big part of the folk, not as the people which make these
recommendations. I mean, usualy I use the shorted forms where there si
no "SapteSpe". It is of course very understably the normal man/women use
the same short "i" from "SaptiSpe" when he say "Saptisprezece" and not
"Saptesprezece". These are hypercorrections which sounds ab-normal.

>> 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.

Well, the vowel you try to expalin in such sophysticated way is a simply
short "i". An another vowel would hardly can be placed there. I must
agree, I heard too such pronounciations as "op'Spe", "Sap'Spe",
"nou'Spe"

> 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.

Kind of *patriSpe where "tri" was elided for avoiding "pã treiSpe" to be
confounded with ?

>
>> -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

Mmmmm.. that would imply there has been a time when Albanians and
Romanian have been aware that "na" in Slavic means "on", thus they
compounded in the same way a la: if the slavs say one zo ten, why should
we not say too one toward ten for Rom. or one on/after ten for Alb.

Pretty analitic these old Albanians and Rom. Probably the South Slavic
reduction of "na" should be something recent otherways the explanation
with "Slavic translation" would not fit anymore.

Alex