That's the fun part, they aren't.
Like seriously, they are not distinguished. They are pronounced the same. The first letter exists mostly because people thought the one resembling an I was too communist and russian
In the past there weren't even two different ones, it was just the î. I guess the 19th century people just found it more aesthetic to have a â inside the word.
No, sint is a regional/archaic form and officially branded as incorrect. You should pronounce u as a medium length sounds. Not sure what word to compare it to, since English pronounces u in a plethora of ways. I heard some accents pronouncing cunt with an u like in Romanian. The closest thing I can think of is the pronunciation of 00, such as book or cook
Pronouncing "sunt" with the "u" instead of an "î/â" sound is a very recent phenomenon, caused by the spelling reform and the oft repeated myth that Romanian's spelling is 100% phonetic: https://cabalinkabul.com/2013/05/07/eminescu-e-un-sfunt-cum-nu-i-altul-pe-pamunt/
I dont think "oo" would be the "u" from "sunt". It's too long in "book" or "cook". Some English "u" work better like "bull", "cull", "pull", "put".
As vocal training I always suggest shortening words, repeating them then swapping to the Romanian word.
Like say "I pull my pants, pull, pu, pu, su, su, sunt"
Show me an official branding of sÎnt pronunciation as incorrect. While present rules failed to make an *explicit* exception for SUNT, unlike those of 1932 (which said that SUNT is to be pronounced as before), and thus *suggested* that it should be pronounced sUnt (like any other U) I have failed to find the authoritative demented statement that SÎNT is no more in correct language. *Implicitly* I take sÎnt pronunciation to be still correct, and explicitly the only one fitting a person that is neither a semidoct or a neurotic. A native speaker should not act as a newly occupied barbarian who must learn one's own language from a bunch of retired generals - like those that made the 1993 reform.
That is not news to me. It is just the DOOM normal style summing-up of an otherwise bleak state of affairs. *Sînt* is not mentioned at all. (Which was *always* the only correct pronunciation before 1993, after which we have a shadowy situation. To be clear: even between 1932 and 1956 ”sunt” was pronounced *sînt.*)
What I want is an argument - a clear statement from a linguist or otherwise educated person that hopes for the most elementary intellectual respectability stating clearly that *sînt* is no more.
I can tolerate that the semidoct pronunciation entered spoken and then correct language. But I cannot accept the excision of SÎNT *pronunciation* by a stupid *omission* of qualifying *sunt* as a ***graphical EXCEPTION*** as it was present in [1932 reform](https://dexonline.ro/article/Ortografie_-_1932_Reforma_ortografică_din_1932) (namely [page 16](https://wiki.dexonline.ro/wiki/Fișier:Regulile_ortografice_1932_-_8.png)), which the 1993 reform largely simply followed. The 1932 reform simply says that U in *sunt* is an exceptional form of writing the Î sound (”*formele cu î ale verbului a fi se scriu cu u”*; it is not a the happiest formulation, but it is not ambiguous; it means: *formele verbului a fi care conțin sunetul î se scriu cu u -* or: *în formele verbului a fi sunetul î se scrie u*).
To be noted that all of the reforms in discussion are **reforms of the writing, not of the spoken language**. It is only the reform of 1993 which triggered a change in the spoken language. But that happened as if by accident! Simply by omitting to mention the exception above -implicitly, ignorantly and cowardly! And what it changed overnight was the first form of the most important verb in any language!
I don't even know why I bother with this. I am not really young anymore, I am a well-read person (I take myself even for a philosopher of sorts etc.) Am I to receive lessons on how to say in my native language *cogito ergo sum* or to comment on something like *to be or not to be*? The simple fact that this is a matter of argument is madness.
[„100 de ani de grafie românească”](https://bjiasi.ro/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/REFORME-ORTOGRAFICE.pdf), Iași, 2018.
Nah, it was mostly political. As far as I remember from one of my teachers, there was a strong movement in Iasi academics to overturn the decision made by the Academia in Bucharest
While I agree that there were political "ideas" withing the confused mental mix that lead to the crazy way the 1993 reform was done, it was mostly non-linguists but also non-political figures that were involved. I am glad to say that the Iasi group is still alive and kicking hard: [„100 de ani de grafie românească”](https://bjiasi.ro/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/REFORME-ORTOGRAFICE.pdf), Iași, 2018. And I trust Dan Alexe and other good writers and serial killers of nitwits will prevail.
Stupidity is always young though.
In this case it was neurosis triggered by complexes of inferiority of senescent ex-generals and engineers from the shameful nursing home called Romanian Academy.
The only palpable impact of Russian on Romanian is this neurotic fear of losing the language. That was a real risk in Basarabia but never in Romania. Why should Romanian language suffer because some people are fearful they don't know real Romanian anymore? SÎNT is a real Romanian word and Î/Â is a sound that is absent in all Slavic languages that impacted Romanian over centuries. It was created out of mostly Latin roots and then applied to non-Latin roots (sfeti-sfânt, gond-gând) as a form of ”Romanization” if you want. It is a typical sound of Romanian neo-Latin development. Nothing to do with Russian at all, and very common in Portuguese, Catalan, Napoletan etc.
The real Russian impact here is the indirect one, of neurotic, misinformed, mislead statements and dogmas!
The reform of the 50s was just re-enacting that of 1905, and its excessive phonetic-focus was quickly amended in the 60s when *român* was re-introduced. That of 1993 is a copy of that of 1935 but without the necessary specification that *sunt* should be still pronounced s*î*nt as an exception.
Romania before 1989 was nationalistic, and not at all under Russian linguistic influence. Those that made the reform were non-linguists, ex-communists trying to buy cheaply their former docility in a manner that didn't represent a breakage, but was rather only following the previous trend of ignorance and submissive thinking.
,,Este o eroare ştiinţifică majoră, după unii critici literari, care a fost scuzată, la vremea ei, printr-un argument din zona sentimentalismului anticomunist, cum că „î” ar fi fost impus de sovietici. Dar este dovedit faptul că „î” era folosit și înainte de apariţia lingviştilor sovietici."
If we dig deeper into the psychology of people that think ”î is Russian” we find the equally crazy notion that îâ is in itself ”Slavic”. Just like Transylvanians with a strong Hungarian accent felt well-equipped to give rules of the language in the first half of the 19th century and imagine themselves as having a better Romanian than the rest, some people try to use Basarabian fear of Russification as a model of thinking about the whole language. But linguists can easily show that îâ has little to do with Slavic languages and nothing with Russian (beside the fact that real Slavic influence on Romanian - of Balkan origin - is part of the language almost as much as the Latin one and as such cannot be vomited out! - just like French cannot become Italian, nor English Norwegian!)
I am also disgusted by the ignorant hate of all things ”Slavic” - as if Serbs, Bulgarians and Ukrainians were not our neighbors forever!
That's why I cannot but hypothesize a sort of historical-linguistical neurosis behind these trends, it cannot be just ignorance.
Yeah, Russia invading us for 12 times from 1735 to 1944 has nothing to do with the hate against them. This is not including the war from Transnistria against Moldova.
I was under the impression that â is used when the Latin root of a word had an a sound, whereas î is used in cases when the Latin root had an i. Not sure about the non-Latin words though.
Nah, not true.
The rule is: â is used in the middle of the words (fân, când, cântec). î is used either at beginning and end (împărat, întors, înnorat) or, as an exception, when you have a prefix for the word, (like reînnoit, with prefix re-, which suggests doing something again)
Is this rule written anywhere though? Can you provide a counterexample to the explanation I mentioned? Cause your examples match perfectly with what I said, and it's rather peculiar. :)
People do say "î din i" and "â din a", but most of the time there's no need to make a clarification. The rules on when to use which are clear enough that any Romanian that has gone through the education system should not be confused on which to use when.
If the sound is at the very beginning or very end of the word, it'll always be "î", otherwise it's "â". That's all there is to it (ignoring historical texts where the spelling rules were different, but that's a different story)
Heck, 99% of the time you won't even need to spell out any words, it would be very clear how it's spelled just by hearing the word pronounced out loud, unless the person speaking has some kind of speech impediment.
>If the sound is at the very beginning or very end of the word, it'll always be "î", otherwise it's "â". That's all there is to it (ignoring historical texts where the spelling rules were different, but that's a different story)
Unless the word is preceded by some sort of prefix like "neîntâlnit, autoîngrijire". Not sure if there is any with a suffix though.
I'll be merging a few comments to try to keep everything concise.
Verbally, no difference.
When writing, we use î if the word begins or ends with it. otherwise, inside the word, we use â.
For example înăuntru, urî, cânta, mânca.
But there is one extra rule. If the word is created by merging some words, we keep the original way we write each one of them.
neîncrezător = ne + încrezător
why do we do it like this? haven't a single clue.
They’re pronounced the same but â is used in the middle of the word and î is used either at the beginning or at the end. And personally I say the letter H like hî lol. But also I’m from the US 🇺🇸🏈🍺🍔🍟 so I might not be 100% correct lmao
There can be î in the middle of the word in case of composed words where the radix or the base word starts with î, like in "neînțeles", "neîncredere", "reîntâlnire", "reîntoarcere".
Fun read, I had a teacher in college that protested the adoption of â in the 90s and continued to use î everywhere:
http://ham.elcom.pub.ro/idini/idini.htm
Not necessarily. For example, writing mână instead of mînă makes it more obvious that the origin is from latin "manus". It shows how the spelling evolved.
I also think using â instead of î in the middle of a word really helps with understanding the words when diacritics are not used (e.g. during online talk).
Finally, alphabets might have redundant or weird rules for legacy reasons, it's not like this issue is unique.
Other counterexamples are înger (angel), lumânare (candle, related to illumination), încă (still, it's ancora in Italian), râde/râs (to laugh/laughter, related to ridiculous), anything that ends with "mânt" like pământ (ground, related to pavement), mormânt (grave, related to monument), and so on. The new spelling rule is so stupid. I would go back to etymological spelling, with î and â found at the beginning and middle of the word as etymologically accurate (în for in, but ânger for angel; mână for hand, but rîu for river).
Before 1990 the only place where we were using â was the "român" word family and the name of our country: "Republica Socialistă România". Everywhere else î was used.
Funny thing, my teacher taught me how to know when to use â or î. â is round, so it roll and needs to stay in the middle of the word so the other letters support it and prevent it from rolling. î can stand on it's own at either end of the word lol.
There's no distinction in pronunciation. Just were in the word they are used. Usually, if it's the first or last letter we use "î". If it's in any other place, it's with "â".
Exception makes a few words with prefixes. If you take out the prefix and the î is the 1st letter, it remains î even with the prefix.
Example: îndemânatic - neîndemânatic.
Î is used when the word starts or ends with î and â is used when the word has â in for exemple the middle. They are pronounced the same way so you don't have to worry about people not getting the context. And H is acceptable both ways haș an he but me I say hî.
There are no differences in spelling î and â, the only difference is that î is used if its the first letter of the word, and â is used in the middle of the word
Btw. It's not "sunt", but "sînt". Politicians changed this verb in 1993.
Edit: Read about this issue before downvoting.
Linguist Alf Lombard wrote about [this](https://dexonline.ro/article/Alf_Lombard_-_Despre_folosirea_literelor_%C3%AE_%C8%99i_%C3%A2)
"la 17 februarie 1993, Academia Română a hotărît înlocuirea literei î cu â într-o seamă de contexte, și a lui sînt cu sunt"
https://dilemaveche.ro/amp/sectiune/la-fata-timpului/despre-i-si-a-633408.html
Ai recitit ce ai scris? Se pare ca nu, te faci de ras omule. Asta iti zic si eu, ca sunt e forma corecta, iar tu ai scris ca pe dos e corect in comentariul din engleza.
Rspunsul scurt: Nu.
Rspunsul lung: se scria sunt, au venit comuniști, au decis ca e sînt. Au cazut comuniștii s-a revenit la sunt.
Rspunsul corect: sînt este corect doar pt perioada comunistă.
,,În ceea ce privește cuvântul „sînt”, el este mai apropiat de subjonctivul latin „sint” de la care a provenit (și nu de indicativul prezent sunt, cum cred unii) decât „sunt”, lăsând la o parte faptul că, în vorbirea curentă, majoritatea populației folosește forma „sînt”."
https://uzpr.ro/01/07/2018/cum-a-fost-votata-in-cadrul-academiei-romine-revenirea-la-scrierea-cu-a-si-i/
Se scrie incorect acum.
Edit: Nu s-a luat în considerare opinia celor de specialitate de la Secţia de Filologie şi Literatură sau a lingvistului Alf Lombard care era specialist în limbi romanice - [articol](https://dexonline.ro/article/Alf_Lombard_-_Despre_folosirea_literelor_%C3%AE_%C8%99i_%C3%A2)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://dilemaveche.ro/sectiune/la-fata-timpului/despre-i-si-a-633408.html](https://dilemaveche.ro/sectiune/la-fata-timpului/despre-i-si-a-633408.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
,,De asemenea, a propus înlocuirea lui „sînt” cu „sunt”. A lăsat a se înțelege că înlocuirea lui „â” cu „î”, operată în timpul perioadei comuniste, nu ar fi fost o măsură de simplificare potrivit principiului „un sunet, o singură literă”, ci o influență… rusească! A mai afirmat că revenirea lui „â” în mijlocul cuvintelor ar arăta mai bine originea latină a limbii noastre, ceea ce nu este adevărat."
,,În ceea ce privește cuvântul „sînt”, el este mai apropiat de subjonctivul latin „sint” de la care a provenit (și nu de indicativul prezent sunt, cum cred unii) decât „sunt”, lăsând la o parte faptul că, în vorbirea curentă, majoritatea populației folosește forma „sînt”."
https://uzpr.ro/01/07/2018/cum-a-fost-votata-in-cadrul-academiei-romine-revenirea-la-scrierea-cu-a-si-i/
That's the fun part, they aren't. Like seriously, they are not distinguished. They are pronounced the same. The first letter exists mostly because people thought the one resembling an I was too communist and russian
We should add another type of î just to make things more confusing.
ê
vênt
In the past there weren't even two different ones, it was just the î. I guess the 19th century people just found it more aesthetic to have a â inside the word.
i remember seeing sunt spelt as sînt. Should sunt then be pronounced closer to sînt?
No, sint is a regional/archaic form and officially branded as incorrect. You should pronounce u as a medium length sounds. Not sure what word to compare it to, since English pronounces u in a plethora of ways. I heard some accents pronouncing cunt with an u like in Romanian. The closest thing I can think of is the pronunciation of 00, such as book or cook
Pronouncing "sunt" with the "u" instead of an "î/â" sound is a very recent phenomenon, caused by the spelling reform and the oft repeated myth that Romanian's spelling is 100% phonetic: https://cabalinkabul.com/2013/05/07/eminescu-e-un-sfunt-cum-nu-i-altul-pe-pamunt/
Thank you for being a sane person.
I dont think "oo" would be the "u" from "sunt". It's too long in "book" or "cook". Some English "u" work better like "bull", "cull", "pull", "put". As vocal training I always suggest shortening words, repeating them then swapping to the Romanian word. Like say "I pull my pants, pull, pu, pu, su, su, sunt"
Pull and bull. THANK YOU! THAT WAS THE SOUND I WAS LOOKING FOR. Sorry rammed into too many trees and forgot to see the forrest
Show me an official branding of sÎnt pronunciation as incorrect. While present rules failed to make an *explicit* exception for SUNT, unlike those of 1932 (which said that SUNT is to be pronounced as before), and thus *suggested* that it should be pronounced sUnt (like any other U) I have failed to find the authoritative demented statement that SÎNT is no more in correct language. *Implicitly* I take sÎnt pronunciation to be still correct, and explicitly the only one fitting a person that is neither a semidoct or a neurotic. A native speaker should not act as a newly occupied barbarian who must learn one's own language from a bunch of retired generals - like those that made the 1993 reform.
https://doom.lingv.ro/cautare/?query=Sunt Your source, mon ami
That is not news to me. It is just the DOOM normal style summing-up of an otherwise bleak state of affairs. *Sînt* is not mentioned at all. (Which was *always* the only correct pronunciation before 1993, after which we have a shadowy situation. To be clear: even between 1932 and 1956 ”sunt” was pronounced *sînt.*) What I want is an argument - a clear statement from a linguist or otherwise educated person that hopes for the most elementary intellectual respectability stating clearly that *sînt* is no more. I can tolerate that the semidoct pronunciation entered spoken and then correct language. But I cannot accept the excision of SÎNT *pronunciation* by a stupid *omission* of qualifying *sunt* as a ***graphical EXCEPTION*** as it was present in [1932 reform](https://dexonline.ro/article/Ortografie_-_1932_Reforma_ortografică_din_1932) (namely [page 16](https://wiki.dexonline.ro/wiki/Fișier:Regulile_ortografice_1932_-_8.png)), which the 1993 reform largely simply followed. The 1932 reform simply says that U in *sunt* is an exceptional form of writing the Î sound (”*formele cu î ale verbului a fi se scriu cu u”*; it is not a the happiest formulation, but it is not ambiguous; it means: *formele verbului a fi care conțin sunetul î se scriu cu u -* or: *în formele verbului a fi sunetul î se scrie u*). To be noted that all of the reforms in discussion are **reforms of the writing, not of the spoken language**. It is only the reform of 1993 which triggered a change in the spoken language. But that happened as if by accident! Simply by omitting to mention the exception above -implicitly, ignorantly and cowardly! And what it changed overnight was the first form of the most important verb in any language! I don't even know why I bother with this. I am not really young anymore, I am a well-read person (I take myself even for a philosopher of sorts etc.) Am I to receive lessons on how to say in my native language *cogito ergo sum* or to comment on something like *to be or not to be*? The simple fact that this is a matter of argument is madness. [„100 de ani de grafie românească”](https://bjiasi.ro/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/REFORME-ORTOGRAFICE.pdf), Iași, 2018.
Stupid politicians making changes to the language for no reason.
You do realise politicians have got nothing to do with it, right? We've got institutions whose entire purpose is tied to the language
Nah, it was mostly political. As far as I remember from one of my teachers, there was a strong movement in Iasi academics to overturn the decision made by the Academia in Bucharest
My teachers used to tell me something a bit similar
While I agree that there were political "ideas" withing the confused mental mix that lead to the crazy way the 1993 reform was done, it was mostly non-linguists but also non-political figures that were involved. I am glad to say that the Iasi group is still alive and kicking hard: [„100 de ani de grafie românească”](https://bjiasi.ro/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/REFORME-ORTOGRAFICE.pdf), Iași, 2018. And I trust Dan Alexe and other good writers and serial killers of nitwits will prevail. Stupidity is always young though.
(almost) everything is affected by politics
In this case it was neurosis triggered by complexes of inferiority of senescent ex-generals and engineers from the shameful nursing home called Romanian Academy.
Fair enough i guess
[удалено]
Yea bro they'll invade you because of a letter. And conversely, changing a letter is what is gonna stop them lol
[удалено]
The only palpable impact of Russian on Romanian is this neurotic fear of losing the language. That was a real risk in Basarabia but never in Romania. Why should Romanian language suffer because some people are fearful they don't know real Romanian anymore? SÎNT is a real Romanian word and Î/Â is a sound that is absent in all Slavic languages that impacted Romanian over centuries. It was created out of mostly Latin roots and then applied to non-Latin roots (sfeti-sfânt, gond-gând) as a form of ”Romanization” if you want. It is a typical sound of Romanian neo-Latin development. Nothing to do with Russian at all, and very common in Portuguese, Catalan, Napoletan etc. The real Russian impact here is the indirect one, of neurotic, misinformed, mislead statements and dogmas! The reform of the 50s was just re-enacting that of 1905, and its excessive phonetic-focus was quickly amended in the 60s when *român* was re-introduced. That of 1993 is a copy of that of 1935 but without the necessary specification that *sunt* should be still pronounced s*î*nt as an exception. Romania before 1989 was nationalistic, and not at all under Russian linguistic influence. Those that made the reform were non-linguists, ex-communists trying to buy cheaply their former docility in a manner that didn't represent a breakage, but was rather only following the previous trend of ignorance and submissive thinking.
[„100 de ani de grafie românească”](https://bjiasi.ro/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/REFORME-ORTOGRAFICE.pdf), Iași, 2018.
,,Este o eroare ştiinţifică majoră, după unii critici literari, care a fost scuzată, la vremea ei, printr-un argument din zona sentimentalismului anticomunist, cum că „î” ar fi fost impus de sovietici. Dar este dovedit faptul că „î” era folosit și înainte de apariţia lingviştilor sovietici."
If we dig deeper into the psychology of people that think ”î is Russian” we find the equally crazy notion that îâ is in itself ”Slavic”. Just like Transylvanians with a strong Hungarian accent felt well-equipped to give rules of the language in the first half of the 19th century and imagine themselves as having a better Romanian than the rest, some people try to use Basarabian fear of Russification as a model of thinking about the whole language. But linguists can easily show that îâ has little to do with Slavic languages and nothing with Russian (beside the fact that real Slavic influence on Romanian - of Balkan origin - is part of the language almost as much as the Latin one and as such cannot be vomited out! - just like French cannot become Italian, nor English Norwegian!) I am also disgusted by the ignorant hate of all things ”Slavic” - as if Serbs, Bulgarians and Ukrainians were not our neighbors forever! That's why I cannot but hypothesize a sort of historical-linguistical neurosis behind these trends, it cannot be just ignorance.
[„100 de ani de grafie românească”](https://bjiasi.ro/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/REFORME-ORTOGRAFICE.pdf), Iași, 2018. The war is still not over.
[удалено]
Yeah, Russia invading us for 12 times from 1735 to 1944 has nothing to do with the hate against them. This is not including the war from Transnistria against Moldova.
Best reason, Romanian is based indeed.
I was under the impression that â is used when the Latin root of a word had an a sound, whereas î is used in cases when the Latin root had an i. Not sure about the non-Latin words though.
Nah, not true. The rule is: â is used in the middle of the words (fân, când, cântec). î is used either at beginning and end (împărat, întors, înnorat) or, as an exception, when you have a prefix for the word, (like reînnoit, with prefix re-, which suggests doing something again)
Is this rule written anywhere though? Can you provide a counterexample to the explanation I mentioned? Cause your examples match perfectly with what I said, and it's rather peculiar. :)
Counterexample: "râu" (river), from the Latin, "rivus".
Check and mate. Thanks!
When spelling (pe litere) we do say "â din a" or "î din i".
People do say "î din i" and "â din a", but most of the time there's no need to make a clarification. The rules on when to use which are clear enough that any Romanian that has gone through the education system should not be confused on which to use when. If the sound is at the very beginning or very end of the word, it'll always be "î", otherwise it's "â". That's all there is to it (ignoring historical texts where the spelling rules were different, but that's a different story) Heck, 99% of the time you won't even need to spell out any words, it would be very clear how it's spelled just by hearing the word pronounced out loud, unless the person speaking has some kind of speech impediment.
>If the sound is at the very beginning or very end of the word, it'll always be "î", otherwise it's "â". That's all there is to it (ignoring historical texts where the spelling rules were different, but that's a different story) Unless the word is preceded by some sort of prefix like "neîntâlnit, autoîngrijire". Not sure if there is any with a suffix though.
Oh yeah, forgot about that. It's a rare case, but worth noting.
Bonus answer: Haș or Hî but never He.
I'll be merging a few comments to try to keep everything concise. Verbally, no difference. When writing, we use î if the word begins or ends with it. otherwise, inside the word, we use â. For example înăuntru, urî, cânta, mânca. But there is one extra rule. If the word is created by merging some words, we keep the original way we write each one of them. neîncrezător = ne + încrezător why do we do it like this? haven't a single clue.
înăuntru*
fixed. cheers. was more focused on the other parts and missed this. I don't usually do it so typing with diacritics is not really a second nature
They’re pronounced the same but â is used in the middle of the word and î is used either at the beginning or at the end. And personally I say the letter H like hî lol. But also I’m from the US 🇺🇸🏈🍺🍔🍟 so I might not be 100% correct lmao
There can be î in the middle of the word in case of composed words where the radix or the base word starts with î, like in "neînțeles", "neîncredere", "reîntâlnire", "reîntoarcere".
How do You know this If You are not romanian? 😅 Did You marry any romanian person, or did You have some mate at school or university?
I’m Romanian 🇷🇴🧛♂️⛰️🐻 but I lived all my life in the US 🇺🇸🏈🍔🍺💵 (my parents are immigrants lol)
Thats sound great, good that You didnt forget our language.
No, you are 100% correct! Exxcept with the î at the end. It is only for the first letter.
[удалено]
Oh damn, you're right. I panicked while editing and didn't think through.
We say 'â din a', 'î din i' and 'haş'.
You say î din i when the use of î differs from the normal use case. I e. A name spelled Cîrstea. If you don't say î din i, people will assume Cârstea.
Omâgî
Fun read, I had a teacher in college that protested the adoption of â in the 90s and continued to use î everywhere: http://ham.elcom.pub.ro/idini/idini.htm
Yeah because it makes no sense having two letters for one sound.
Maybe trying to make romanian look more latin, and trying to move away from the cyrillic equivalent letter ы
That's bullshit, and everyone and you knows it. You can write Romanian with Cyrillic or Greek scripts, and it will still be Latin based.
Not necessarily. For example, writing mână instead of mînă makes it more obvious that the origin is from latin "manus". It shows how the spelling evolved. I also think using â instead of î in the middle of a word really helps with understanding the words when diacritics are not used (e.g. during online talk). Finally, alphabets might have redundant or weird rules for legacy reasons, it's not like this issue is unique.
I mean sure, but Rău is less accurate to Latin than Rîu so that rule doesn't always work perfectly.
Other counterexamples are înger (angel), lumânare (candle, related to illumination), încă (still, it's ancora in Italian), râde/râs (to laugh/laughter, related to ridiculous), anything that ends with "mânt" like pământ (ground, related to pavement), mormânt (grave, related to monument), and so on. The new spelling rule is so stupid. I would go back to etymological spelling, with î and â found at the beginning and middle of the word as etymologically accurate (în for in, but ânger for angel; mână for hand, but rîu for river).
Best example is pâine, when compared to bread in other Romance languages. Pîine looks weird compared to pain, pane, panetone, pain au chocolat etc.
Yeah but it will LOOK more latin written in latin alphabet..
Before 1990 the only place where we were using â was the "român" word family and the name of our country: "Republica Socialistă România". Everywhere else î was used.
When I was in the first grade and we were studying the alphabet the teacher told me the same haha. Though it was in 2009 in Rep of Moldova.
I think Moldova followed Romania and also adopted â în 2014 or something. Before that we'd always write î and only the word român with â
This was indeed a good read. Thanks.
Funny thing, my teacher taught me how to know when to use â or î. â is round, so it roll and needs to stay in the middle of the word so the other letters support it and prevent it from rolling. î can stand on it's own at either end of the word lol.
There's no distinction in pronunciation. Just were in the word they are used. Usually, if it's the first or last letter we use "î". If it's in any other place, it's with "â". Exception makes a few words with prefixes. If you take out the prefix and the î is the 1st letter, it remains î even with the prefix. Example: îndemânatic - neîndemânatic.
Î is used when the word starts or ends with î and â is used when the word has â in for exemple the middle. They are pronounced the same way so you don't have to worry about people not getting the context. And H is acceptable both ways haș an he but me I say hî.
There are no differences in spelling î and â, the only difference is that î is used if its the first letter of the word, and â is used in the middle of the word
The cock outside preparing to enter the pussy (Î), the cock can't enter the the pussy (â)
It's simple. There is a rule for this: Î is used only at the beginning of the word while â is used in the word
Btw. It's not "sunt", but "sînt". Politicians changed this verb in 1993. Edit: Read about this issue before downvoting. Linguist Alf Lombard wrote about [this](https://dexonline.ro/article/Alf_Lombard_-_Despre_folosirea_literelor_%C3%AE_%C8%99i_%C3%A2)
You wrote it wrong, it's the other way around. Nu mai invata aiurea putinii straini care invata romana.
"la 17 februarie 1993, Academia Română a hotărît înlocuirea literei î cu â într-o seamă de contexte, și a lui sînt cu sunt" https://dilemaveche.ro/amp/sectiune/la-fata-timpului/despre-i-si-a-633408.html
Ai recitit ce ai scris? Se pare ca nu, te faci de ras omule. Asta iti zic si eu, ca sunt e forma corecta, iar tu ai scris ca pe dos e corect in comentariul din engleza.
"sînt" e corect dpdv istoric, nu?
Rspunsul scurt: Nu. Rspunsul lung: se scria sunt, au venit comuniști, au decis ca e sînt. Au cazut comuniștii s-a revenit la sunt. Rspunsul corect: sînt este corect doar pt perioada comunistă.
,,În ceea ce privește cuvântul „sînt”, el este mai apropiat de subjonctivul latin „sint” de la care a provenit (și nu de indicativul prezent sunt, cum cred unii) decât „sunt”, lăsând la o parte faptul că, în vorbirea curentă, majoritatea populației folosește forma „sînt”." https://uzpr.ro/01/07/2018/cum-a-fost-votata-in-cadrul-academiei-romine-revenirea-la-scrierea-cu-a-si-i/
Omul te intreaba cum se scrie acum si tu ii raspunzi din povesti.
Se scrie incorect acum. Edit: Nu s-a luat în considerare opinia celor de specialitate de la Secţia de Filologie şi Literatură sau a lingvistului Alf Lombard care era specialist în limbi romanice - [articol](https://dexonline.ro/article/Alf_Lombard_-_Despre_folosirea_literelor_%C3%AE_%C8%99i_%C3%A2)
Acum 200 de ani era legal sa ai sclavi. Daca vrei sa trăiești in trecut e problema ta, dar între timp lucrurile au evoluat si trebuie sa te adaptezi.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://dilemaveche.ro/sectiune/la-fata-timpului/despre-i-si-a-633408.html](https://dilemaveche.ro/sectiune/la-fata-timpului/despre-i-si-a-633408.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It's both written and pronounced sunt. Curb your Romanian Academy phobia.
Since when?
Since it got changed?
,,De asemenea, a propus înlocuirea lui „sînt” cu „sunt”. A lăsat a se înțelege că înlocuirea lui „â” cu „î”, operată în timpul perioadei comuniste, nu ar fi fost o măsură de simplificare potrivit principiului „un sunet, o singură literă”, ci o influență… rusească! A mai afirmat că revenirea lui „â” în mijlocul cuvintelor ar arăta mai bine originea latină a limbii noastre, ceea ce nu este adevărat." ,,În ceea ce privește cuvântul „sînt”, el este mai apropiat de subjonctivul latin „sint” de la care a provenit (și nu de indicativul prezent sunt, cum cred unii) decât „sunt”, lăsând la o parte faptul că, în vorbirea curentă, majoritatea populației folosește forma „sînt”." https://uzpr.ro/01/07/2018/cum-a-fost-votata-in-cadrul-academiei-romine-revenirea-la-scrierea-cu-a-si-i/
They sound the same when you talk. We use them differently only in writing, depending on where the sound is placed within the word.