Re: OT: NATLANG: Romanian orthography question

Quoting Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...>:

> !!!Unicoded as UTF-8!!!
>
> JS Bangs scripsit:
>
>
> > Quoting Isaac Penzev:
> > > Yes, you are right. Final _i_ indicates palatalization
> >
> > However, in this case the /i/ isn't final either in pronunciation or in
> > spelling, so it is actually pronounced. _Unit,i-vã_ should in fact be
> > [u'nitsiv@]. Also, while there is some palatalization before front vowels
> in
> > Romanian it is much, much less prominent than in Slavic langs, so saying
> > that "vorbi" is [vor'b_ji] is rather misleading, as it sounds to my ear as
> > simply [vor'bi]. Romanian palatalization is in general much less
> pronounced
> > than in Slavic.
>
> Any Romanian I heard IRL, was a Moldavian variant. It's deadly palatalized.
> And
> _uniţi-vă_ was clearly without extra [i]. May it happen due to Cyrillic
> spelling
> _униць-вэ_?
Perhaps. Moldovan is more heavily influenced by Russian than the other
dialects, and based on what you've said it would appear that the dialectical
differences are great indeed. In the more "standard" dialect that I know, there
is definitely an [i].


--
JS Bangs
jaspax@glossopoesis.org

"We're counting on our virtues
   Because it's too hard to count the dead."
     -Jason Webley

Reply