From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 28372
Date: 2003-12-12
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001" <george.st@...> wrote:
> >Well, this vindicates M. Iacomi's point. The _spelling_ of
> >tri is utterly irrelevant. What matters is the _pronunciation_.
> >
> >Enough about this.
>
> [The last one in this thread. :-)] Only for those who
> might be interested in such peculiarities of the
> Romanian language:
>
> The relationship "spelling--pronunciation" is there and is
> important, however.
>
> There is a rudiment of rendering in the current
> spelling (I already mentioned this): the doubling of the
> letter "i".
>
> Hence, <trii> (meaning "three") __must__ be written
> with a double-i, whereas the prefix <tri-> only with one.
>
> There ain't no *professional* printout (be it newspaper,
> book, disc or CD label) with this regional variant with
> a single "i"! Wherever you find the word written with a
> single "i," you'll automatically be justified to conclude
> the scribbler has grammar problems (or is even a dyslexic
> person). This, even if that person is entitled to
> prof.dr.dr.dr.& dr. honoris causa.
>
> Two "i"s in writing (representing this [ij]) represent
> a big ortographic problem for most of Romanian native
> speakers. Indeed, not only because this collectivity
> of people lack the appropriate knowledge of the rules,
> but also because of one's own pronunciation flaws or those
> of one's environment (subdialect or (rather) sociolect!).
>
> Once again: this phenomenon evolved after 1902, when the
> graphical rendering of the [ij] occurrence was given up
> altogether and forever (earlier than that, one had written:
> "i" plus a second "i" with a tiny half circle instead of the
> dot).
>
> In spite of this simplification of the graphical rendition
> (whith its consequences), you'll never find Romanian texts
> published by professionals in which to find words such as
> *tri (when it is the synonym of <trei> "three"), *pirostri,
> *mini$tri+a$tri+pede$tri (when articled!!!) etc. Instead,
> you'll constantly find: pirostrii, mini$tri+a$tri+pede$tri
> (all these four being plural forms, without the definite
> article!).
>
> And the last 3 words are very good examples for
> distinguishing between the phonetic occurrences: their
> final [i] is a genuine, full, but short [i], in the
> plural without article...
>
> ... whereas, when the "i"definite article is added to
> them, then the pronunciation... changes! It'll cease
> to be a mere [i], it'll become an [ij]. (Don't bother:
> in Romanian linguistic books, this is described accordingly.)
>
> This is the reason why we *must* write <ministrii>!
> As in this sentence: "Presedintele s'a intalnit
> cu ministrii." / "Presedintele s'a intalnit cu
> ministri" is either wrong or needs the including of
> a word, such as "ni$te," "unii," "<a numeral>", namely
> included between "cu" and "ministri." Otherwise it'd be
> erroneous.
>
> (<no$tri>, <vo$tri> can be used as sort of a... litmus
> test (-: if the tested person writes *no$trii and *vo$trii,
> then you'll be sure that person has no idea whatsoever
> of the rules & of the pronunciation differences; moreover,
> that person will be tempted to double the "i" in verbs of
> the fourth conjugation, e.g. <*a venii, iubii, fii, lovii,>
> which is outrageous, ludicrous and disheartening at the
> same time.
>
> (This thingamagig is as stubborn as, say, the spelling
> *seperate in English. :-))
>
> >Miguel
>
> George
>
> PS: I grew up in a subdialectal environment where [trej]
> is sort of an... imported pronunciation. The specific
> pronunciation for my region is [trij]. Whoever is interested
> in this phonetic thing, can verify this as a tourist visiting
> those areas (esp. Banate, Transylvania and Northern Moldavia:
> the incidence of [trij] is the weakest on a NW->SE axis
> when travelling from W to E).