[tied] Re: 3

M. Iacomi,
You are extraodinary ....I bet with you on 10000 beers, that you
cannot pronounce 'a correct' 'tri' in romanian NW dialect

(and a local jury will tell you that you are not from there...when
you would try to do this)

Also in your day to day life you never use 'tri' or hear
an 'original one', but you are very sure about its spelling.

In addition you can say (once again like an expert, in an unknown
field - see 'Dacian glosses' in other messages):

"People not having well understood differences
between [i] and [y] are the overwhelming majority..."
(of course not like you, that have understood very well...)

Uuufffffffffff.... somebody had right when he said :

'everything is possible in this world'.

Regards,
marius

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
>
> > 09-12-03 18:13, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> >> 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')
>
> He _is_, as all Northern Daco-Romanian speakers.
>
> >> that is NO DIPHTONG there...trust me, NO DIPHTONG there, is
> >> all I can say.
>
> ... which leads us to the conclusion you either don't know what
> the diphthong [iy] is and how it sounds like, or you have a very-
> very special way of pronouncing the word, not common for the vast
> majority of native speakers in the area.
>
> > One has to be careful: many speakers of English whose phonetic
> > 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.
>
> That's my point. Actually, the few spelling problems in Romanian
> arise frequently around number of "i"s to be written at the end or
> even inside the words. People not having well understood differences
> between [i] and [y] are the overwhelming majority and they can argue
> for a long time on a dimension just missing from their awareness,
> fanatically backing some erroneous spelling they think justified.
>
> > OK, assuming for the sake of the argument that your
> > 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.
>
> Perfectly right. If he really says [tri], that can't be anything
> but the result of [trey] > [triy] (lenition, N. Romanian) > [tri]
> (oversimplification due to some really lazy people having spread
> the idea; as said, the normal Northern Daco-Romanian pronunciation
> is [triy]).
>
> > Therefore, the whole diphthong-or-monophthong controversy is
> > irrelevant to the question of the origin of the numeral '3' in
> > Romanian.
>
> Ditto.
> Regards,
> Marius Iacomi