Re: Schöffe II

Am 19.03.2011 18:52, schrieb Torsten:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "t0lgsoo1" <guestuser.0x9357@...> wrote:
> >
> > (unicode UTF-8)
> >
> > >>"cioban" which should be pronounced as "tschöban" in German..
> >
> > Not at all. In the Romanian spelling cioban, _i_ is inserted after
> > _c_ only to signalize: "pronounce it [č]!". There is no [jo] there
> > whatsoever. (Explanation: there has been a weird habit for Romanians
> > outside the Carpathian "arch" range to think of _io_ [jo] as
> > an awkward substitution for _ö_; the same applies to a _iu_ [ju]
> > for "ü". Such people tend to pronounce Köln [Kjoln], München
> > [miunhən].)
>
> Sounds like what the Russians do. Influence of the former Cyrillic
> spelling?

Apparently the phonetic aspect is simply influenced by the next vowel
which follows the consonant "c" and the palatising vowel "i" or "e".
thus "c^+V" (where V= "i" or "e") will be pronounced "c^e" when the next
vowel is an "a" or "e" (ex:ceapã, cearceaf, cerdac,ceramicã) and it will
be pronounced "c^i" when the next vowel is an "i", "o" or "u"
(ex:cioban,ciresh,ciucure).
Of course there is in Ro. lang the middle vowel "ã (@)" but so far I
know, there is not possible to have a word with the "c^+V" +"ã"(@),
thus there cannot be seen any

Of course one can allways sustains that "c^i" and "c^e" are allophones
but there is a differnce in the pronounciation which simply can be heard.

please excuse the divagation, I just considered it is maybe better to
see if the phonetic environment is the explanation for the difference.


Alex