From: m_iacomi
Message: 28247
Date: 2003-12-09
> 09-12-03 18:13, alexandru_mg3 wrote:He _is_, as all Northern Daco-Romanian speakers.
>
>> But in this case, once again, as a NATIVE speaker, I wanted ONLY
>> to say to you and to George (that you are not NATIVE speakers
>> of 'tri')
>> that is NO DIPHTONG there...trust me, NO DIPHTONG there, is... which leads us to the conclusion you either don't know what
>> all I can say.
> One has to be careful: many speakers of English whose phoneticThat's my point. Actually, the few spelling problems in Romanian
> realisation of /i:/ in <three> is an [Ij]-type diphthong are not
> aware of the diphthongal movement and will swear by all that is
> dear to them that they have a "pure" vowel. We can't study your
> pronunciation directly, so it's impossible to determine who's
> right.
> OK, assuming for the sake of the argument that yourPerfectly right. If he really says [tri], that can't be anything
> self-observation is correct and that really have a monophthong
> there, it's still clear that the historical source of the
> monophthong is the smoothing of the diphthong /ei/, which
> represents the regular development of Latin <tre:s> in East
> Romance.
> Therefore, the whole diphthong-or-monophthong controversy isDitto.
> irrelevant to the question of the origin of the numeral '3' in
> Romanian.