# sîntem?



## wanipa

Salut!

I've got to know today that "sîntem" is the other way of "suntem" (a fi).

But nowhere can I find the usage in dictionaries.

Does it happen to be a misprint?

Mulțumesc mult!


----------



## farscape

This is a highly controversial topic 

The Romanian Academy considers _sunt/suntem/sunteţi_ as the only acceptable form today. _Sînt/Sîntem/Sînteţi_ was considered ok up until mid-1990s, however many linguists do not agree with the return to the form *sunt* which was used up until mid-1950s.

Bottom line, use _sunt/suntem/sunteţi_ and you'll be ok.

Best,
f.


----------



## wanipa

Thanks!

It really seems that what I've learned is old-fashioned. ;-(

Nice weekend!


----------



## naicul

I wouldn't say it's old fashioned. There are many places where the old form is still used. An example is Dilema Veche (Dilema Veche). Colloquially, everyone would understand any of the two forms. But in official situations (like for an exam) I would stick to the new ("suntem") form.


----------



## irinet

Yes, that's right, both forms are in use because linguistic changes always take time to pin down. We still talk using 'sîntem', but the new generation writes 'suntem'.


----------



## wanipa

Multumesc mult!


----------



## Rallino

irinet said:


> Yes, that's right, both forms are in use because linguistic changes always take time to pin down. We still talk using 'sîntem', but the new generation writes 'suntem'.


Is _suntem_ pronounced with an _u_ or an _î _?


----------



## farscape

It's an "u" -for those who are familiar with the language and the sounds, it's easy to note the distinction. I can't tell you now the phonetic spelling but there is a difference, rather subtle, in the way the two words are pronounced because of the U vs. Î change.

Later,
farscape


----------



## metaphrastes

Sălut!
Might one say _sunt/suntem/sunteţi _are cultisms, striving to be closer to the Latin roots, and imposed by scholars? Or were these forms used in Romanian language from old times (side by side with _sînt/sîntem/sînteţi)_? I read something about the conscious effort made by Romanian writers and scholars, in ends of XIX century, on order to privilege the words from Latin roots instead of later accretions from Slavic, Turkish and other languages around, and I wonder if this particular issue is related with some similar goal (cherishing Latin roots and heritage).
Mulţumesc.


----------



## farscape

This is a highly debated topic and in general you are correct however the norms set forth by the Romanian Academy and its Linguistic Institute require the spelling _sunt/suntem_.

There are many places and publications nowadays which continue to use the spelling from before the last change (circa 1995) and that is _sînt/sîntem_.

Given that this topic is more related to ethimology and the history of the Romanian language I urge you to open a thread in that forum to continue the discussion.

farscape - moderator


----------



## irinet

<edited to avoid topic drift. farscape, moderator>

(...) I don't believe that anyone can give a fair answer to this question about the latest evolution of the Latin verb 'esse' in Romanian, and all the 'â' sounds replacing 'î' as well after 1993.


----------



## metaphrastes

@farscape: may I rephrase my question to a more practical, simple level? If so, I would ask (because my learning of Romanian language is mostly trough written form): are there people, today, who actually pronounce _sunt _and the other forms with an actual _u _sound? Were there in recent past (before last changes) people who actually pronounced _u? _Or would it sound artificial?

Regarding the other connected issues, that have philosophical-political-ideological ramifications, I for sure will leave them to another forum. I hope this question is appropriate and, if not, I will gladly delete or edit it.

Thank you.

<edited to avoid topic drift. farscape, moderator>


----------



## irinet

I suppose that it's artificial.
We say 'sînt' and write 'sunt', etc.

Why?
Due to those generations that they used to utter and write down only 'sînt' and 'sîntem'. And who cares about the rules at home?!

...which makes of your question a very interesting idea to think of .

Other than that, there were people _in_ _the country_ pronouncing 'u' before the nineties, which was considered regional. Urban areas were not used to these forms.


----------



## farscape

metaphrastes said:


> @farscape: may I rephrase my question to a more practical, simple level? If so, I would ask (because my learning of Romanian language is mostly trough written form): are there people, today, who actually pronounce _sunt _and the other forms with an actual _u _sound? Were there in recent past (before last changes) people who actually pronounced _u? _Or would it sound artificial?



It mainly depends on when the speakers went to school and to a lesser extent (as _irniet_ implies) on their location - but I don't support the split in urban vs. non-urban idea. In general, people who went  through high-school before the "reform" (circa 1955) and almost all printed media where using the form sunt/suntem and where pronouncing the same way (my parents and grandparents). Over the years (by 1980s) I think sunt/suntem all but disappeared from the written and spoken language of the newer generations.

To be honest, I like it better the way it sounds with u instead of î in _sunt _and at times it's rather hard to distinguish one from the other unless it's in written form. But this is just me, I also like novelists like Camil Petrescu and Albert Camus 

Later,


----------



## metaphrastes

Thank you very much for both answers, they are clear enough. I was under the impression that _sînt _was a kind of regional, country dialect, but I see this impression is wrong. As for the deep old etymologies, I will leave them for another forum and another occasion.
And as for me, I too like more saying _sunt_, both because its pronunciation is easier and more natural for us, as well it sounds more familiar: a stronger likeness to Latin somewhat makes it closer to Portuguese, too. And the harder thing in Romanian phonetics, as for me, is the "î"-"â" sound!


----------



## naicul

There are people that pronounce "sunt" as there are people that still use the - older - "sînt" form. I agree with farscape that this mainly depends on when  they went to school. I think the younger generation (people who went to school after 1995) prefers using the "sunt" form.


----------



## Caktus

metaphrastes said:


> Sălut!
> Might one say _sunt/suntem/sunteţi _are cultisms, striving to be closer to the Latin roots, and imposed by scholars? Or were these forms used in Romanian language from old times (side by side with _sînt/sîntem/sînteţi)_? I read something about the conscious effort made by Romanian writers and scholars, in ends of XIX century, on order to privilege the words from Latin roots instead of later accretions from Slavic, Turkish and other languages around, and I wonder if this particular issue is related with some similar goal (cherishing Latin roots and heritage).
> Mulţumesc.


I don't think that _sunt/suntem/sunteţi_ are cultisms. My grand-parents and the older people from the vilage where they live in southern Romania use _sunt_ and it's not influenced by school. As far as I know these forms are also recorded in the Romanian Linguistic Atlas.


----------



## jimmyy

In every language there are changes that occur over time. In French they had as well some reforme of the ortographe some time ago. The same in Romanian.
Languages evolve.

Then it's only a matter of preference for the spoken language (both the old and the new forms will be accepted in the spoken language). Whereas in the written form of any language, the new rules are enforced in school, thus the new generation will not know the old form, thus in a matter of years, the old form will disappear (only present in old books). The pronunciation of "suntem" can be found here: www.learnro.com/be-have-conjugated-romanian


----------



## danielstan

In every language there are changes over time. but normally the written form of a language should follow the spoken form and not the opposite.
Historically the form 'sunt' has no merit in Romanian.
Oldest surviving Romanian document ('Neacsu's letter' - 1521) has the form 'sînt': Neacșu's letter - Wikipedia (at the end of line 9 in the letter's text)

Alexandru Rosetti, the best Romanian linguist, wrote in his life masterpiece _Istoria limbii romane_ ('History of Romanian language') - last edition of 1986, page 147: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_Z89zncYF2-Qmc5ejRxZTNZeEk
'_sunt_ este o forma savanta, introdusa de scoala latinista in secolul al XIX-lea' ('_sunt_ is a savant form invented by the Latinist School in 19th century')

At singular (Rom. _eu sînt_ < Lat._ ego sum_) the _*'î'*_ could have been influenced by Bulgarian 'aз cъм' (I am), while the final 't' could be influenced by the plural form '_ei sînt_' (same book, same page).

Regarding the orthographic reform of 1993, it's worth mentioning this paragraph: (See: Ortografia limbii române - Wikipedia)

"În 1993 Academia Română a decis printr-un vot revenirea la grafia cu litera Â în loc de Î în anumite poziții ale cuvintelor și la scrierea formelor _sunt_, _suntem_, _sunteți_ în loc de _sînt_, _sîntem_, _sînteți_. La vot au participat toți membrii Academiei, indiferent de specialitate. La momentul respectiv Academia avea doi membri lingviști: Ion Coteanu, care s-a abținut, și Emanuel Vasiliu, care a votat împotrivă."

Translation:
"In 1993 Romanian Academy has decided by vote reinstating the orthography with Â instead of Î in certain positions and the forms  _sunt_, _suntem_, _sunteți_ instead of _sînt_, _sîntem_, _sînteți_.
All academicians have participated to the vote, no matter their specialty. At that moment the Academy had 2 linguists: Ion Coteanu, who refrained from voting, and Emanuel Vasiliu who voted against."

------------
Regarding the adoption of the pronunciation 'sunt' with 'u' I will give a conclusive example:
my son, born in 2007, spoke with '_sînt' _with me in the house and with his friends outside, until he went to school. In the 2nd grade the teacher insisted the pupils should pronounce '_sunt_' at school and since a year my son pronounces _'sunt'_ even in the house, to avoid troubles at school. I pronounce '_sînt' _everywhere - I hear people of my generation pronouncing_ 'sînt'. _Only politicians or TV presenters make effort to pronounce _'sunt' _in public speeches.

And this is how a language could be changed by the 'leaders', not by the people...

----------------------
Regarding changes of the language made 'by the people':
Since 18th century, accelerating in 19th century, the definite masculine article with the termination '-ul' has been reduced in pronunciation to the termination 'u'.
Example:
_lup*ul*_ (French 'le loup') - is pronunced _lup*u*_'

In public speeches, on TV, political discourses etc. - people make effort to pronounce 'correctly', but in private... people changes the language.
Since the 18th century the family names have gradually changed and now their vast majority are spelled with final_* 'u'*_, although a final _*'ul'*_ would be etimologically correct.
E.g. Mihail Eminesc*u*, Nicolae Ceausesc*u*

In 19th century lived people like Dimitrie Onci*ul*, Aron Pumn*ul*.

We could expect in 100-200 years an orthographic reform for common names like
_lup*u*_ = *the* wolf.


----------



## irinet

I am a bit amazed of your persistence to giving up the definite article 'l' in common nouns in favour of the '*u*' ending.

What would be the linguistic explanation for '*u*' to exist by itself: _what would it stand for_? Gender?
With proper nouns, gender distinction is made by the given names.

In English, for instance, we have 'should've done' _pronounced_ as _one word_. Does this pronunciation allow us to consider that in future, the verbal group will become one word only?

The same happens to the definite article 'an elephant', 'an egg', etc. In French, we have '_c'est_', which definitely sounds like one word, but it's not. When speaking, we tend to give up either sounds or 'to swallow' others just to speed up the message. What does this mean for future: for instance, changing the entire worldwide Lexicography?

And definitely, that's off topic here.


----------

