Talk:Romanian phonology

message: :also Italian /ʣ/ is missing in Romanian
Actually, it is missing in standard Romanian, but it is present in the vernacular of some regions, such as Maramureş and Bukovina. For example, they say "dumnădzău" for "dumnezeu". bogdan | Talk 13:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian /ʣ/ is missing in Romanian 

message: In non-emphatic yes/no questions the pitch rises at the end of the sentence until the last stressed syllable. If unstressed syllables follow, they often have a falling intonation, but this is not a rule.
— Ai stins lumina? [ai stins lu↗mi↘na] (Have you turned off the lights?)
— Da. (Yes.)
According to Grice, Ladd and Arvaniti (2000), p.156-157), this pattern is in fact somewhat marked or emphatic (it "strongly focuses on the verb"). They say that the non-emphatic, neutral pattern is, instead, one that has low pitch stretching until the last stressed syllable and then a final rise (I suppose the transcription in the system used here would be [ai stins lumi↗na]). --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes/no question intonation 

message: : only /e̯a/ and /o̯a/ can follow an obstruent-liquid cluster such as in broască ('frog') and dreagă ('to mend').
but isn't the îu in /brɨu/ following an obstruent-liquid cluster (br)? bogdan (talk)
:In her phonological approach, Chiţoran considers that Romanian has only two "true" diphthongs, /e̯a/ and /o̯a/, whereas other vowel-semivowel or semivowel-vowel sequences are just that: sequences. For example, in brîu /brɨw/ the semivowel /w/ just happens to come after /ɨ/. On the other hand, there is no Romanian word with a sequence like /OrjV/ or /OljV/, where O is an obstruent and V is any vowel, and that makes a clear distinction between two sorts of rising diphthongs.
:Apparently Chiţoran disregards the diphthong /e̯o/, although it too can follow obstruent-liquid clusters, such as in pleoşti.
:The problem is that the article now presents two points of view --- Chiţoran's two-diphthong system and the traditional many-diphthong system --- in a confused mixture, without specifically stating which is which. — AdiJapan 03:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again diphthongs 

message: About Wikipedia's: "/t/ and /d/ are only similar, not identical, to their English counterparts. While in English they are alveolar, pronounced by touching the alveolar ridge with the tip of the tongue, in Romanian and other Romance languages they are dental, obtained by touching the roof of the mouth just behind the teeth with the flat of the tongue. The same remark is valid for consonants /n/, /s/, and /z/, although the difference is not as obvious."
That is partially true. I quote B.Collins, "Practical Phonetics and Phonology": "The plosives /t,d/ are advanced to dental when adjacent to dental fricatives,i.e articulated with the tongue-tip behind the teeth: eighth, hid them. The same goes for /n,l/: anthem,both numbers,,healthy,faithless."
Bogdanno (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've changed the wording to "usually alveolar" to reflect your comment. — AdiJapan 07:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

text: It must've referred to the most common allophone. You know, the one that doesn't require a following dental consonant. Sol505000 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alveolar consonants 

message: I've reverted a good-faith edits by Akhenaten01, who added two palatal stops to the consonant inventory, /c/ and /ɟ/ (here and in Romanian language). Current phonological analyses of Romanian do not consider them phonemes, but allophones of /k, g/. For this, see Ioana Chițoran's The Phonology of Romanian, page 10, that can be read on Google Books. She states that the phoneme inventory without /c, ɟ/ is "the one commonly assumed for Romanian". And I think we should stick to what is commonly assumed.
It is true though that Petrovici proposed inventories with /c, ɟ/ as separate phonemes, but then again such analyses also claim that all the other palatalized consonants are separate phonemes. Moreover, it is also true that, quite often in phonetic Romanian transcriptions, [k, g] are distinguished from [c, ɟ], but this is done without an implicit claim that they are distinct phonemes (I would say it's done for the sake of tradition more than for the sake of precision; a hint of this is that IPA is still not used in such transcriptions).
If the two were separate phonemes, one would probably be able to distinguish, for example, between /ke, ki, ge, gi/ and /ce, ci, ɟe, ɟi/. But one cannot. One argument for considering /k/ different from /c/ would be the fact that one can distinguish between [ka] and [ca] in word pairs such as car and chiar (although these can be written phonetically as [kar] and [kʲar]). The problem with this argument is that, more often than not, [ca] is actually a realization of /ke̯a/, as in cheamă, just the same way as the sequences /te̯a/, /le̯a/, etc.
Until Emanuel Vasiliu's Fonologia limbii române (1965) phoneme inventories tended to claim /c/ and /ɟ/ to be separate phonemes. Vasiliu argued (page 122 therein) for /k/ and /g/ to include [c] and [ɟ] as allophones. Now, judging from Chițoran's statement, it appears that Vasiliu's proposal has become mainstream. — AdiJapan 13:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, given the user's edit summary, they may believe that the table is designed to show allophones.  If there's some variation in the treatment of the palatal stops, I wouldn't mind including them with some sort of footnote or something. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palatal stops [c] and [ɟ] as separate phonemes 

message: /s/, /z/, /ts/ and /r/ aren‘t dental in romanian. May someone correct this.−−YodaMaster445 (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I confirm the above. Also, there seems to be some debate regarding various vowel realizations. Perhaps some bit of actual peer-reviewed quality research here helps: https://conf.ling.cornell.edu/peggy/Renwick_2012_Vowels-of-Romanian.pdf 89.136.169.68 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sounds are not dental 

message: Seriously? Glottal? What little Romanian I've heard consistently had a velar [x] for h, and this is carried over as an accent into English. I natively speak German which keeps [h] and [x] pretty well apart. David Marjanović (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd explain  surfacing as . It'd be nothing more than fronting, as in Polish and Russian. Sol505000 (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [h]?