[tied] Re: Numerals query again

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

> m_iacomi wrote:
>
>>> the prep. "spre" given as deriving from Latin "super"
>>
>> "given as" should be skipped in normal reading.
>
> Why?

In order to make sense.

>>> 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.

No, I have a dictionary and (unlike you) I use it:
super ADV
above, on top, over; upwards; moreover, in addition, besides;
super PREP ABL
over (space), above, upon, in addition to; during (time);
concerning; beyond;
super PREP ACC
upon/on; over, above, about; besides (space); during (time);
beyond (degree);

[Actually I used it just for making my point, of course I was
aware of Latin "super" meaning]

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

OK, I should have written "in first Daco-Romanian texts <spre>
appears _also_ as synonymous with <pe>" but I skipped that part
for being shorter. Anyway, the point remains the same.

>> I have nasty feelings when reading _bad_ Romanian.
>
> You don't neet to have nasty feelings.

Yes. You claim you are writing down "literary" forms and you
write actually your own vague idea about what Romanian numerals
should be. That is simply bad Romanian and wrong statement. If
you ignore the spelling of those recommended forms, take the DEX
and use it, do not invent.

>>> 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".

For Alex' ears and in bad Romanian, yes.

> An another vowel would hardly can be placed there.

Of course it can. The neutral sonant can assume a phonematical
value of /1/, /&/ or even /e/ (etymologically justified).

>> 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 ?

No. "pa-tru-spre-ze-ce" is too long, the syllable "-tru-" is
simply skipped and one would have "*pa-spre-ze-ce". In order to
make sure that the other person realizes there was originally a
"patru" (four) at the very beginning, and for one's own mental
ease, the ellision of a syllable has to be marked in some way.
The simplest way would be to make a long [a:] (/pa:sprezec^e/) but
quantity distinction is not relevant in Romanian. So one has to
replace the [a:] by some diphthongue; the first one to come in
mind and the easiest to pronounce in those phonetical conditions
is [ay].

> 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 [...]

Yes, it was. At least Romanians have many loan translations
from Slavic, proving it really was the case.

Marius Iacomi