|From:||Irina Rempt-Drijfhout <ira@...>|
|Date:||Monday, July 19, 1999, 18:25|
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Padraic Brown wrote:
> "Carol I Domnul Romaniei"=20
"Carol I Lord-the Romania-of"
> "Carol I Rege al Romaniei"
"Carol I King of-the Romania-of"
> "Carol II Regele Romanilor"
"Carol II King-the Romanians-of"
> I bet the le isn't voc. here, but nom.
It's the definite article for masculine words ending in -e, or indeed
any vowel other than -u. Anyway, if words *do* end in -u it's
probably been suppressed and only comes back when the word has an
article, like in _domn(u)_ + _l(u)_ =3D _domnul_ "the lord".
For your information and entertainment, here's the Trisagion ("thrice
holy", the thing sung in the Orthodox Church before the Gospel book
is brought in) in Romanian:
_Dumnezeu_ from "Dominus Deus"; -le *is* the vocative ending here
no vocative ending; _tarele_ sounds silly to me but that's perhaps
because I've been singing it without it for years
Sf=EEnte f@r' de moarte =20
Holy without part. death
@ is a-with-a-bow, the apostrophe stands for another elided @.=20
part. =3D partitive "of"; f@r@ "without" doesn't need it in modern
usage, but in this verse it's always used, perhaps archaically.
miluieSte-ne pe noi
have.mercy-us upon us
S is s-with-a-tail, pronounced [S]. The clitic pronoun is mandatory,
even in modern informal usage (_t,i-am v@zut_ "I've seen you",
_t,i-am v@zut pe tine_ "I've seen YOU"; t, is t-with-a-tail,
pronounced [ts]). The accusative is usually, perhaps always - my
Romanian is as rusty as a medieval nail and the book is behind my
mother's legacy) - expressed by _pe_ "on", so we can call it a
separate case, I think.
Varsinen an laynynay, saraz no arlet rastynay.