Talk:Romanian numbers

Dialect pronunciations

On a recent SCOLA news broadcast from Moldova, the anchor pronounced 2008 as douǎ mii uopt (note the nonstandard pronunciation of the 8). I went back and listened to it again, and I'm sure she said this in at least two different parts of the newscast. Is this a common pronunciation in Moldova? I didn't see it mentioned in the article (uopt is mentioned as a dialect pronunciation, but only for a very small community that is nowhere near Moldova). Comments, anyone? Richwales 01:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

To 84.xx.xx.xx: Please do not start an edit war. Romanian currently has two spelling varieties, and at Wikipedia none of them can be given priority with respect to the other, just as much as any of the several English spelling varieties are allowed here on equal grounds. Switching an article from one spelling to another is wrong --- read this, in particular the section "Retaining the existing variety", and this. — AdiJapan ☎ 08:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it looks like someone else may be reopening this edit war, perhaps it would be good to expand a bit on this issue. To what extent, nowadays, is the Communist-era convention (near-exclusive use of î and almost complete abolition of â) still in use? It was my (mis?)impression that this convention was no longer actively used anywhere now — which, if true, would suggest that the US-vs.-Commonwealth English spelling situation might not be a valid analogy here. I don't claim to be really knowledgeable on this point, and I'm not trying to argue for one side or the other — I'm just suggesting that some more talk is probably in order. Richwales (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The new (in fact old) convention is indeed significantly more widespread, so if you chose what spelling to use at Wikipedia by counting votes or by other democratic means, then indeed that convention would win. (By the same line of thought, the British spelling would probably disappear from our articles.) But Wikipedia is not a democracy. The old Romanian spelling (in fact the most up to date) is being actively used in parallel with the other one. There are a number of newspapers, publishing houses and even works published by language specialists (dictionaries, grammar books, etc.) using this spelling. Now if you want Wikipedia to truly reflect the use of the two spellings in today's written Romanian, you have to accept them both.

Sure thing, there are people claiming that the old spelling should be completely eradicated (as much as there are people claiming that the new spelling is simply wrong), so new users will occasionally start edit wars. This used to be a big problem at the Romanian Wikipedia, and the solution was to have a policy that prevents editors from simply switching an article to the other spelling (the spelling can, however, be switched when the article is developed so much that its size more than doubles). See the policy here. Since then it's become very rare that a user switches a page to the other spelling, and when it does happen, the edit war is quickly stopped by simply directing users to that policy.

Indeed, the analogy with the American/British spellings is not perfect, because in that case there are specific national ties. In the case of Romanian, there is only a weak relation between countries and spellings: î/sînt is more frequently used in the Republic of Moldova than in Romania. But in articles such as "Romanian numbers" there is no reason to link the subject with one country more than with the other, so I believe WP:RETAIN should be applied. — AdiJapan 01:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

While, it is true that it's indicated to retain the style, I think that for an article dealing with the Romanian language, the dominant form (â) should be used instead of the (now only official in Moldova) old form (î), at most specifying that the second version exists (which I am going to add). Anyway, the modification affects only a small section of the article and can't be considered a stylistic modification. --Ayceman (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Both sides here seem to have merit, but on balance, I personally (for what it's worth) am inclined to side with Ayceman on this one. This is an article about Romanian — not an article in Romanian — and most readers will have (at best) a sketchy understanding of Romanian — so it makes a lot of sense for the spelling in this article to reflect the convention that predominates in the present-day Romanian-speaking world. If an acknowledgment is needed here of the existence of two spellings, I would suggest making it a footnote reference containing a link to the relevant discussion on the Romanian language page. The Versiuni de ortografie română policy in the Romanian Wikipedia was really designed for a diverse body of text being written in Romanian, and it needn't necessarily apply here in this situation. Richwales (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Neuter form of 31

In a recent (on or about May 16?) broadcast of TVR's Telejurnal news program, it sounded very much to me like the weather reporter said treizeci şi un de grade (un, not unu). I played it back again and again, and if she did in fact say unu, I confess I simply couldn't hear it. Any thoughts? Richwales (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It must be a mispronunciation. There is no way a native Romanian would ever mean to say treizeci şi un de grade. Also it is most probable that if she did pronounce it that way, just about all native listeners would think they heard treizeci şi unu de grade, with their brains doing the automatic correction. I guess both phenomena (the mispronunciation and the autocorrection) happen very often in every language. — AdiJapan 15:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

79

79 62.201.242.176 (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Romanian number examples

Really? "1 from each group"? "Divide into groups of three"? Consider dimensional lumber; 2"x4"s, 4"x4"x8', 2"x8"x12'. Those are vestiges of Romanian measurement? How else are you going describe a rectangle or other trapezoid? If people walk 2x2, they are 4 abreast. Poorly written. 2600:1700:9AAE:7010:3D4E:D2F2:29D2:AFF0 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)