# -GN- sound



## metaphrastes

Buna, dragi prieteni!

Although I do not have too much exposition to spoken Romanian, I do have the impression that, _sometimes, _the two consonants _-gn- _(as, for example, in _răstigni_) might be pronounced in a similar way to French or Italian -_gn-, _or Brazilian _-nh-, _or Spanish _-ñ-. _I would say, _not so much soft _as these sounds, but not having the _-g- _and -_n- _clearly pronounced. Basically, my impression is that the _g _suffers some palatalization from the proximity with the _n, _and this sounds closer to French _-gn- _in _soigneur _than to a hard gutural _g, _clearly distinct from the dental _n, _both articulated in opposed regions of the tongue.

Since Romanian spelling is consistently _very _phonetic - the more phonetic I ever knew - I wonder if:

1) Is this impression true at all?

2) If true, is such pronunciation considered standard, or correct? Or a hard pronunciation would be the standard?

3) Or is it rather a matter of some dialect, local accent, or idiolect (that is, some personal odd accent it happened I have had some exposition to?)

Thanks to all, mulţumesc!


----------



## farscape

To my ear, in the following words the groups of consonants _gn_ and _cn_ have a very similar pronunciation: the g and c while not accentuated, are clearly heard/pronounced and do not suffer the same transformation as the g in the gn words from French or Portuguese you are referring to. The sound for the following letter n is also clearly heard making for an intresting speech exercise.

These are the words:
Ignat
a icni, a răstigni, ignifug, a pocni, agnostic and so on.

I'm wondering if people from the regions of Banat or Maramureș use such a change in the pronunciation of the group gn as you mention, given other localized phonetics they have.

As a general rule we pronounce both sounds because they are part of two different syllables:
- răs-tig-ni
- ic-ni / răc-ni
- Ig-nat
- ig-no-ra
- ig-no-bil

Later,


----------



## metaphrastes

Thank you, farscape,

thus, the correct pronunciation is with both sounds. I use to pronounce both, since we have in Portuguese this group too, although it is not the most common. We have _ignorar (a ignora), ignóbil (ignobil), agnóstico (agnostic), ígneo (of the nature of fire), _and many others, mostly from Greek roots. There are a few words with _cn _too, such as _acne_, and both sounds are pronounced, too. _(to the French sound of -gn- we would write -nh-, where the "h" works as a palatalizing sign, similar to mute final "i" in Romanian, as in "bani". However, the palatalization in the Portuguese case is stronger).
_
Now, regarding the name _Ignat _(from the same root of _ígneo, _related with _fire_), the "g" became mute many time ago, so that only in old books, from the first half of XX century, it was written (although not said). Thus, the old spelling would be something as _Ignácio, _while today it is spelled _Inácio_, that is still today a common name.

I hope it has some interest to the forum.
Obrigado, mulţumesc!


----------



## farscape

This is very interesting and informative, *metaphrastes*!

I'm writing from my phone now, but the thing I remember the most about Ignat is in reference to Christmas traditions (won't go into details though).

Thanks for starting  this thread 

farscape


----------



## metaphrastes

Good to know the thread and info is welcome 
Regarding Christmas traditions, it is natural since Saint Ignatius (or Ignat) is commemorated on December 20, a few days before Christmas, or Crăciun. It must be a beautiful season, in Romania!


----------



## naicul

Yes, Ignat happens on 20th of December in Romania and it's when, especially in the countryside, people sacrifice their pigs which they are going to serve as dinner during Christmas. The Romanian Christian celebration is mixed with some pagan beliefs and traditions.
I've encountered the word Ignat as a surname as well, but never as a given name.

As for the pronunciation, both consonants (gn) are clearly pronounced.


----------



## irinet

Yes, in Romanian we do not have the *consonant group /gn/*. If there were, we would have it in a syllabic unit as it is the case with French, Italian, etc.. Instead, we have the _consonants_, */g/* and* /n/*, as Farscape showed in his post.


----------



## metaphrastes

Thank you again, for confirming the info farscape gave 

Now, for what is worth, in Portuguese we have the word _digno, _which we say _dig-no_, with both consonants in different syllables, and that means _worthy, vrednic, _coming from the Latin _dignus.
_
Now, we may find in old Portuguese literature, such as in XVI century Camões, or in Galaic-Portuguese poetry of XIII century, the spelling _dino, _without the _g_. That suggests that in those times the _g _was somewhat absorbed by the _n _in pronunciation, so that it was not written. And for some reason, the cult form, closer to Latin, eventually came back both to spelling as well to pronunciation.


----------



## naicul

metaphrastes said:


> Now, for what is worth, in Portuguese we have the word _digno, _which we say _dig-no_, with both consonants in different syllables, and that means _worthy, vrednic_


I'd translate the word you mention as "demn", since it has the same latin root dexonline


----------



## metaphrastes

naicul said:


> I'd translate the word you mention as "demn", since it has the same latin root dexonline


Thanks, I was more familiar with "vrednic". It is interesting because DEX describes the phonetic evolution from _dignus _to _demn _as _"modificat după lemn < lignum, semn < signum, etc." _This evolution is somewhat similar to _dignus < dino _as we find in archaic Portuguese, or _Ignatius < Ignácio < Inácio _as we find in modern Portuguese. It seems there is a natural tendency to soften the _GN _meeting_, _that we find across many languages, though in different ways.

Now I remember the Latin _agnus (lamb-miel) _that in a somewhat archaic or regional Portuguese was called _anho (that is said exactly with the palatalized French "gn" sound). _Interestingly enough, as per DEX, _miel _came from Latin _agnellus, _a diminutive form of _agnus. _Now, as per the _Dicționarul etimologic român _(again in DEX online), it is difficult to explain why this phonetic change did not resulted in _mn _as in other cases - anyway, the _gn _gave way to a _m _sound.

Anyway, this same source gives an interesting hypothesis that seems to give answer to my original post. It says in DEX online: "Ipoteza lui Rosetti, _BL_, V, 33 (și Rosetti, Mélanges, 171), cu privire la un rezultat român(ă) •_ñel _trecut la _miel _prin fonetism analogic, pentru a evita pronunțarea _ñ_, care în român(ă) s-ar considera "patoise", e destul de puțin probabilă, fiindcă propune pentru dacoromân un rezultat _gn › ñ_, care nu apare în alte exemple. . . . . .". (See more details in dexonline, sursa DER (1958-1966).

Now, it seems it is confirmed: the pronounce I sometimes have heard is considered _patois: Patois - Wikipedia_


----------



## irinet

The 'g' sound is an oclusive velar sound consonant, and we don't have an allophone for the nasal /n/ in this context like, [ŋ] is, that imediately follows the /g/ sound.

We have the words 'indignare' , 'indignat' from Latin and 'merituos' (=demn / worthy) from the Latin 'meritorium' I think.

I am not an expert in Phonetics, but I can follow some crumbs of logics.

To be honest, I cannot agree with the statements above regarding the *phonetic analogy *with words like, 'demn' /dignus) or 'miel' (agnellus) despite the DEX rules.

Let us not forget that Geto-Dacians, for instance, were shepherds before the Roman invasion.

And of course, this is my counter- argument only.


----------



## metaphrastes

irinet said:


> Let us not forget that Geto-Dacians, for instance, were shepherds before the Roman invasion.


Yes, I see, it makes all sense that Romanian preserved such words from Geto-Dacian substratum in such an old and essential activity as shepherding. Probably one should not take for sure this evolution from _agnellus _to _miel - _ even the _Dicționarul etimologic român_ recognizes it is difficult to explain that way.


----------

