Talk:Italian language

This page read that Italian was "spoken by about 62 million people", now it reads "spoken by about 58 million people." Which is the correct number? MB 17:28 15 May 2003 (UTC)

Most estimates I see are between 60 and 65 millions people, so I'm putting in the old version At18 19:05 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

---

Ranking flawed

The text says Italian is spoken by 62 millions speakers, while the table claims it is spoken by 55 millions. The table further claims this is sufficient for the 27th place worldwide, while the list of 25 most commonly spoken languages ends with Egyptian Arabic, spoken by 43 millions. The list admits being out of date, but I doubt it was correct for 1996 as well. Or at least I cannot see how can the demographics of Italy account for 50% increase in less than 10 year span. --Peterlin 10:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to divide this statistic into number of speakers in Italy, number of speakers in Switzerland and number of speakers in emmigrant communities. Chameleon 11:57, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To-do notice forgotten in text?

The first paragraph of the "Sounds" section sounds quite odd:

"Description of the sound set of the language. Can include phoneme charts and example words for each phoneme like in French language. If there is significant discussion here, it is probably best to divide the section into vowels and consonants subsections."

It sounds like a "TODO" notice from a pattern article was forgotten into the finished article.

Phoneme listing and comparison?

The article now lists 7 vowel phonemes, then later inconsistently says it has 5 vowel phonemes similar to Japanese. (The Japanese comparison section also says Japanese lacks geminate consonants, when in fact Japanese has geminates quite similar to those of Italian)

I've clarified it, I hope, by mentioning the 5 'default' vowel sounds. There are 7 Italian vowel sounds, but only 5 are used by default, the other two are almost allophones -- mostly only college-educated Italians even know of their existence, but most Italian speakers only hear 5. This is implicitly admitted in the "Vowels" section where we take pains to show the distinction of the extra two. Steverapaport 19:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. You're right about the geminates, I even noticed the error and fixed it before I saw your comment! But thanks for noticing. Steverapaport

This also is wrong. I have removed the remark on Italians being able to distinguish only 5 vowel phonemes because all Italians can distinguish them, and elaborated on the subject. Regional usage varies, but all Italians employ both phonemes---consistently within the same city/region, but inconsistently throughout Italy. On the other hand, a correct usage exists (the Tuscan one, listed in vocabularies) and for a few words exchanging the sounds results in different meanings. Would someone please improve the English, however?

We have 7 vowel sounds: a, è, é, i, o, ò, u, but five vowels: a e i o u. I'm sorry but we use all the seven vowel sounds and all the italian speakers hear these sounds. And they aren't allophones! E.g. pésca it's different from pèsca (one is a fruit the other means "fishing", guess the mean! :) ); corso from còrso (one is a man from Corsica the other means "I have run"); sétte from sètte... The problem is we usually don't write the accents ( but we must write the accent in the last letter of some words: città, or in some verbal tenses: è), and the pronunciation - the sound - of the vowels changes in every "regione". In fact we can recognize from where an italian come from simply hearing how he pronounces the vowels. Last but not least: if you say: "vado a pesca" even if you go wrong in the accent, an italian can understand what you are doing (and where you came from!). Ciao, Dedo

Italian closest to Latin?

Article says that Italian is the closest to "Latin" of the "major Romance languages". Depends how you measure "closest" I guess, but I'd guess that, of the major Romance languages, Romanian is closer in many ways to Classical Latin than Italian is. From the Romanian page: "the grammar is roughly similar to that of Latin, keeping declensions and the neuter gender, unlike any other Romance language." Sounds closer to me. On the other hand if you say "closest to Vulgar Latin" Italian would probably win hands down. Any other opinions from those better informed? Steverapaport 19:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ok if nobody objects I'm changing it.

Yes, mention "closest to Vulgar Latin". Peter O. (Talk) 21:16, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Be attention,the romanian grammar it'quite similar to the latin grammar but not the romanian vocabulary. Italian, French and Romanian too, are only - in different ways - the Latin in the XXI century. The German grammar is roughly similar to latin too, but German doesn't come from Latin! The English also has the neuter gender but doesn't come from Latin... Remember that italian uses classical latin words: e.g. equino, and vulgar latin too:e.g. cavallo, and verbal tenses quite similar to the classic one. There is another problem, what is the vulgar latin? And where was it spoken? The vulgar Latin of Gallia was different from that of Italia or Hiberia or Dacia! There was a military latin - not all the roman soldiers spoke currently latin - and a court latin and so on...And Latin was spoken for about 1000 years in all the Mediterranean zone (mainly in Italy)...What is the Vulgar Latin? I think that all the neolatin languages are close to the latin and there isn't one closer than the others; more, all the neolatin languages are closer to the vulgar latin than to the classic one. Ciao, Dedo

--- Romanian is closest to Latin? It's certainly has latin roots, but not exactly the closest. I speak Italian and Russian, spent time in Bucharest and was taken aback at listening to Romanian. An odd combination of a latin language mixed with a healthy dose of slavic words, phrases and endings. I'm not sure how anyone could claim it's the "closest" to latin.

12 AUG 05

That Italian is generally closer to Latin has been stated time and time again by scholars like Segre and Bruni. Of course, the devil is in the details: some dialects from Sardinia for example keep the sound k for centum and the -us ending and many other languages preserve traits of classical latin that Italian has lost. Overall, however it is one of the most archaic languages with respect to latin. That was because latin was used for a longer time here than in other countries, and because the humanist tradition has been traditionally stronger and writers were traditionally more conservative. Even Dante's De Divina Eloquentia is still on the defensive in the early 1300s, a time when most people still used Latin as their standard. Only after Dante's death did scholar look to vernacular with some respect. --Wikipedius 19:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has dealt with my point above yet. Romanian grammar still seems closer to Classical Latin than Italian grammar does, declensions and all. Anonymous 12 Aug above mentions that Romanian pronunciation and vocabulary are not similar to Latin, and that's agreed. Wikipedius mentions that Italian scholars believe Italian to be closest to Latin, but doesn't say why, and doesn't mention any non-biased (non-Italian) scholars who think so. It still seems evident to me that Italian is closest to Vulgar Latin, and that Italian is closest to Latin with respect to vocabulary and pronunciation, but Romanian still looks like the winner to me with respect to grammar! I think anyone wanting to refute this should first compare Latin grammar with Romanian and Italian grammar. --Steve Rapaport 15:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides the wikipedia quote on Romanian grammar are there any scholars that comment on Romanian grammatic similarity over the other romance languages? Not that I'm arguing, it would be interesting if true. All we have is a wikipedia self-reference to back the assertion along with an individual's opinion. I'm not sure a wikipedia quote and personal experience really qualify as argument to put that as an addition to a wikipedia page on Italian. Most agree that at least a respectable number of scholars have commented on the closeness of Italian and Latin, but there's no corresponding source given for the Romanian/Latin grammar issue. Furthermore arbitrarily accusing Italian scholars of bias on the basis of their being Italian just doesn't seem justified. Do UK scholars who study Old English suffer from the same accusation of bias vis-a-vis their take on contemporary English? Probably not. It would be nice to see something more concrete. Virgil61 23:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Good points, Virgil! So I offer a little evidence. I'm not biased either way, being a foreign-language Italian speaker and having no Romanian or ties to it. But just the basics found from a simple google search on their respective grammars:

(This should be a table but I'm too lazy to make one.)

• Classical Latin is a synthetic inflectional language, its grammar has 6 cases for nouns, 3 genders (masculine, feminine, and neutral), and adjectival agreement by gender and number. It has no articles. Verb conjugation is about the same for all three languages.
• Romanian is also a synthetic inflectional language, its grammar has 6 cases for nouns, 3 genders (masculine, feminine, and neutral), and adjectival agreement by gender and number. Its articles are attached to the end of the noun.
• Italian is an analytic_language inflectional language. Its grammar has 1 (or 2) cases for nouns, 2 genders (masculine and feminine, vestigial neutral), and adjectival agreement by gender and number. It has a full complement of separate articles.

So in addition to the comments under Romanian grammar, the most obvious evidence is that the grammars are just more similar. See also Morphological_typology. And the difference is a matter of degree, not absolutes as I'm implying above. But the amount of difference is pretty obvious --Steve Rapaport 08:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

some advices

Hello Steverapaport,
I see you are very engaged to improve the article about Italian language, and I have the impression that you are doing a good work.
I don’t want to interfere in your work, for that reason I give you some advices on points that, from my point of view, should be improved. I propose to begin with the following:

• accents;
• Italian graphemes;
• geminations;

regards Redi

Thanks, Redi! Please do continue with your advice.

regards, Steverapaport 00:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Syllables ending with "L", "R" etc...

I'm not a linguist, so I'm not sure of the right definition of syllable; however, for what I learned at school, then it can end also with "L". For example: mol/to; cal/do; col/to; col/ti/va/to; mal/to. The same with "R". For example: car/ta; por/ta. or "S" e.g. pes/to; or "F" e.g. naf/ta. I think some for other consonants some examples can also be found. --Ggonnell 15:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. The examples you gave are correct, except for "pesto", which is conventionally "pe/sto". To me, "nafta" also sounds as "na/fta", but that's just me, as the correct hypenation is certainly "na/fta".

A practical rule is to ask oneself: "is there any word that begins with this syllable?". As you'll see, there is no Italian word that begins with ft- (hence, it's "naf/ta", not "na/fta"), but there are words that begin with st- (hence "pe/sto", not "pes/to".

LjL 12:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some examples: pa-sta, but bas-so; la-scio but las-so. However, na-fta is impossible (only naf-ta). --Wikipedius 15:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Closest to Latin

Hello to everyone, I would want to add some comments about the problem "Ïtalian closest to Latin". I read some books on Italian Linguistics and I must confirm that really Italian is closer to Latin than any other Romance language. The reason is by force historical: in fact so-called Italian was the last Romance language to become a real spoken-language. It remained a written language, a Cultural language for a lot of century. This fact permitted to keep almost unchanged a lot of characteristics of Vulgar and Classical Latin. Moreover, being a cultural language it systematically and continuously enriched its vocabulary and sintax with Classical words and sintax, more than any other romance languages. The sintax is considered one of the major footsteps in evaluating closeness to Latin: in fact -the reason is always Italian has been only a written language for many years- Romance languages have all paratactic construction of the period, but Italian has conserved hypotactic construction and freedom in disposing words in sentences quite close to Latin one, although Italian, as the most of Romance languages, has lost declensions. Hi

VeniVidiVici

Well,i'm italian and from what i know of latin i can say that italian is the closest thing to vulgar latin rather than classical latin --Philx 15:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Assimilation

The article said that diphthongs are only in the form "semivowel + vowel". Apparently, "vowel + semivowel" also does fine, so I've changed it. But there is this paragraph about "assimilation" that is a bit puzzling. It says that Italians would tend to pronounce English "strive" without a diphthong, i.e. like Italians pronounce "naïve". Well... no, definitely no.

1. "Naïve" in Italian is not only pronounced without a diphthong -- it's got stress on the "i". I don't think anyone would pronounce "strive" with a stress on the second mora (so to say).
2. In any case, the diphthong in "strive" would, I think, be pronounced as a diphthong by just about any Italian: that's because the diphthong "ai" exists in Italian, contrary to what the article said before. Just think of the words "mai", "fai", "vai" and, for other similar diphthongs, "fui", "coi", "rei".

LjL 12:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

guilty! Colpa mia! The bit about italians pronouncing foreign diphthongs as dieresis is likely true (though unsourced). The example I chose was incorrect, since as you say, "ai" is a diphthong in Italian. (I was misled because italians use that diphthong in english words that normally use different ones, like "like". ("Like" is NOT pronounced with /ai/ in English by native speakers.) )

Anyway, I think the assertion of dieresis in place of foreign diphthongs may still be true, but we need to find an example of a foreign diphthong not found in Italian first.

--Steve Rapaport 20:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Double (long) consonants in French

Can someone provide evidence for long consonants in French? The article previously said that Italian had them, in contrast to e.g. French and Spanish; it now says that Italian and French have them, in contrast with Spanish. The article gemination doesn't mention French as a language with distinctive gemination. Of course, French does have "double consonants" in the sense that the same consonant letter can be written down twice in a row... but that's certainly not what was meant with "double (or long) consonant". Also, this makes me think that we should probably get rid of the word "double" altogether, and only talk about "geminated (or long) consonants", except for later specifying that geminated consonants are written as double in Italian. LjL 12:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Some French double consonant words:
-attraper
-attaquer
-accueil
-attention
-pomme
-bonne
-tellement
-occipital
Of course, it can't be called "germinated", but spanish has no double consonants beside LL which becames a letter by itself (they are 29 letters in Spanish Alphabet), so there's no double consonants in Spanish while they are double consonants in French and Italian.

Not true; there was an reform that removed "LL" and "CH" from the alphabet, and dictionaries now list words with those digraphs in the normal (English) alphabetical order. LjL 15:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

We should split the double and germinated concept in the article.

I don't think we should. We're talking about Italian here, and there's nothing strange about Italian having double consonants (meaning written double consonants) -- almost every language written in the Latin alphabet has them. What is strange about Italian is that it has long (geminated) consonants, which are relatively rare among the world's languages. LjL 15:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There's still some sound shiftings in French when a consonant is doubled. In French, a S between to vowels is pronounced like a Z, so a double S will cancel the effect of that rule. A double C is sometimes pronounced like X and a double L preceded by a I will be pronounced like a Y.

Sure, same happens with S in Italian. But that's completely uninteresting, as things like that happen in English, as well, and in a lot of other languages. What's important is that almost all consonants in Italian, when written double, are pronounced as long. This doesn't happen in French or Spanish. LjL 15:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It is incorrect to put the characteristics of double consonants of French and Spanish together.

Perhaps it's incorrect if one's discussing French vs Spanish, but this is an article about Italian, where the differences between French and Spanish don't matter at all. The case at hand is that Italian has long consonants -- an interesting feature worthy of mentioning -- while French and Spanish don't. You do realize, don't you, that French and Spanish were simply put as examples, and you could remove them entirely and use different examples, or no examples at all (although this wouldn't be particularly desirable)? LjL 15:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

French's double consonant proprieties are closer to Italian than Spanish. This part of the article needs to be cleaned up, but we must keep the distinction between French and Spanish. -Maxime Primeau

No, they aren't closer. In French, single C is /c/, while double C is /cs/; in Italian, single S is sometimes /z/, while double S is /s/; in Spanish, single L is /l/, while double L is /lh/ (using an invented phonetic alphabet, but it should be clear enough).

In all three languages, a double consonant may be pronounced differently from a single. Furthermore, this also happens in English, German, Swedish, etc. But, in Italian, most consonants become long when doubled, which doesn't happen in either French or Spanish.

LjL 15:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In Spanish, double L (the only case of pseudo double consonant) is a single letter, see Spanish alphabet and the case of U and W in english. I maintain that French's double consonant proprieties are closer to Italian than Spanish because in Spanish, there's no double consonant at all. However, you're right, there's no need to mention it in that article.

-Maxime Primeau

Spanish alphabet says that the traditional alphabet includes those "letters". However, it also says that the Spanish Academy has discontinued the use, even though people still sometimes/often spell the old way (as with all things traditional). Oh, and by the way, even if "ll" were considered a single letter, "rr" has always been two letters in Spanish; nevertheless, "r" and "rr" denote different phonemes (not even different lengths of the same phonemes, as in Italian, but different phonemes: one is a flap, the other a trill).

My main point was indeed that there was no need to mention "French vs Spanish doubles" in the article. However, if you like, let's look at this in some more detail. You can easily see that French "c"/"cc", French/Italian "s"/"ss", Spanish "l"/"ll" and so on are manifestations of the same phenomenon: a change (sometimes radical) in pronunciation when letters are doubled. Instead of this somewhat odd (but historically justified) usage, we could simply use more graphemes (letters): Spanish "ñ" is an example of this kind of situation.

This hasn't happened with Spanish "ll", French "cc" and French/Italian "ss", but that doesn't mean anything, except that there might have been various historical reasons for this difference.

Now, why do you maintain that French doubles are closer to Italian than to Spanish? I guess you maintain that simply because French writes doubles in many places where Italian also writes them, but not Spanish: e.g. "attenzione", "attention", "atención", or "attaccare", "attaquer", "atacar".

But the similarity ends in writing: while "attenzione" is actually pronounced with a "double" (long, geminate) "t" in Italian, "attention" and "atención" in French and Spanish are both pronounced with the same, single, short "t".

So, I suppose I can see why you see French doubles are more similar to Italian, but keep in mind that it only works with writing -- pronunciation isn't involved. Think for example of "fato" (fate) vs "fatto" (fact): could you tell them apart if they were pronounced with a French accent (I mean, using only phonemes that belong to French)? LjL 20:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In French, The T wouldn't be long. Fatto would be pronounced like Fato. It only works for writing.

-Maxime Primeau

long consonants in French

Phonetically I'm pretty sure french has no long consonants (in the sense that they would be phonemic). None of the written double consonants are long or geminated when pronounced. See the Double Consonants section in [1]. So the t in attraper and atroce are pronounced the same way.---moyogo

If you compare words like "belle" and "bêle", /bɛl/ and /bɛːl/ or "elle" and "aile", /ɛl/ and /ɛ:l/, you'll hear that the consonant is irrelavant do differentiate between the pairs. The length of the vowel matters. ---moyogo

"Triphthongs can only have 'i' as the last vowel"

Is this true? Right now, I can't think of any word that has a "u" as the last vowel of a triphthong, but my instinct tells me that "iau" or things like that follow the normal pattern of Italian pronunciation. Does someone know of a word with such a triphthong, or does anybody know that it definitely doesn't exist?

Even if it doesn't exist -- excuse my ignorance -- but can we really say that "all triphthongs in Italian must end with 'i'"? I mean, my "instinct" tells me that "iau" could well exist, as opposed to, for example, "tg", which my "instinct" would find strongly un-Italian. Assuming that my instinct about this is shared by a majority of Italians, shouldn't we say something to the effect that "triphthongs can end in 'i' or 'u', but it just so happens that there are currently no words with the 'u' version"?

I'm not going to write this into the article, don't worry, but I'm just curious... is there a linguistic term for such a thing? Does it actually make any linguistic sense at all?

LjL 00:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the fact than an unstressed u cannot be the last phoneme in an Italian word greatly restricts the number of the words where it might be, so it's unlikely that any such word exists. The possible triphtongs ending in -u are: iau, ieu, uau, ueu, uiu (and the last one sounds definitely un-Italian to me.) Theoretically AFAIK even the quadriphtong "iuòi" could exist, but I definitely believe that no word uses it.--Army1987 09:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, let me rack my brains a little...aiuto ("help"), aiuola ("hedge"), vuoi ("you want"). Yes, it's possible, one catch, though: an I or a U surrounded by vowels grows into a semi-consonant, as in You or Woman so sometimes the diphthong is only apparent. If you have more questions feel free to ask me. I appreciate your interest and i would like to help if i can. --Wikipedius 03:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't get a triphthong every time you put three vowels together. I think the sentence after explains it nicely: Triphthongs are limited to a diphthong plus an unstressed "i". (e.g. miei, tuoi.) Other sequences of three vowels exist (e.g. noia, febbraio), but they are not triphthongs; they consist of a vowel followed by a diphthong. So to use your example of aiuto, that's three syllables: a/iu/to, accent on /iu/, which is a diphthong. In the case of "iau", if it existed, (as in "il gatto dice miau") it would be a triphthong I think. Steve Rapaport 20:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Can one say it is a triphthong when either i or u become consonantic? Your syllabic division is phonetically correct, but the orthographic rule goes, you cannot put a break in between vowels: aiu-to. That's odd, isn't it. --Wikipedius 21:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's odd, but spelling rules and pronunciation rules, even in Italian, don't have to match exactly. Even if you can't break the syllables that way for orthographic reasons, it's obvious listening to the word that anyone pronounces the /aiu/ as two syllables. A triphthong, like "miei", is pronounced as one syllable. But about the consonantic i and u, I don't think that's what's happening here,( "ah-yuu-to" ), but even if it is, I believe the consonantic i or u would mark the beginning of a syllable, so could never be the middle of a triphthong.

By the way, what question of mine have you answered recently, Wikipedius?

--Steve Rapaport 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Steve, I just meant to help (sincerely), that's why you see all the edits. "Question"="issue". Phonetically, the division is right, we were just on a different wavelength. One thing though:

"In general all letters are clearly pronounced, and always in the same way. (The only notable allophonic variations in the pronunciation of phonemes in standard Italian are the assimilation of /n/ before consonants, and vowel length (vowels are long in stressed open syllables, and short elsewhere) — compare with the enormous number of allophones of the English phoneme /t/".

Which long vowels? We don't have any. --Wikipedius 22:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

First, I don't think I wrote that bit. (Did I? I honestly don't even think I believe it) But regardless, I'd read "long" here in the sense of English or Swedish, in which a "long" vowel isn't longer in duration, but changes sound instead. The only examples would therefore be the 'couples' (/e/ - /ɛ/) and (/o/ - /ɔ/), and they're adequately discussed elsewhere. I think the bold sentence you quote is unnecessary and probably wrong. Second, I'm not at all offended, I was just looking for the questions because you mentioned them on my page. Thanks for bringing the discussions here to my attention, there are several errors I'm probably responsible for. --Steve Rapaport 00:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Italian and Florentine

Thanks for pointing out the importance of the Sicilian tradition in the shaping of Dante's volgare illustre (it is sometimes neglected). Though the basis for the Italian language is Florentine, influences from other dialects are remarkable. In addition, besides the Sicilian influence as you justly pointed out, many more Latin words were added. The result is a melting pot or koinè: after Pietro Bembo the influence from other dialects has been growing (starting from the 1600s) and after unification has seen the introduction of many more non-Florentine loans. --Wikipedius 20:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Italian-American

I grew up in an Italian-American neighborhood, and I heard some Italian words pronounced much the way they are pronounced in the Sopranos television show. gabbagool=cappacola, compare=goomba, comare=goomar, esto cozzo=stugots. Theres a method to this: c->g, p->b, drop the last syllable. Would this be a page to explain this more fully? I can't do it, I only have anecdotal knowledge. 69.143.57.91 21:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As a native, and a Sicilian (my grandpa worked in the States) I can tell you that what you hear in your place is a local variety, usualy tinged with old Sicilian and Neapolitan dialect. Cumpa' is Neapolitan, comare is dialect or old Italian. Most of the first Italian migrants only spoke dialect. Then, operatic Italian is 19th-century. People who still speak Sicilian in the States often use for example, words that no longer exist on the Island. --Wikipedius 02:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation of R

I'm not sure about the pronunciation of R in Italian. Some sources say that it is always a trill, [r]. But many sources say that Italian also has a tap, [4], and the Wikipedia article shows [4] in Italian's phonetic inventory. I'm not sure about the distribution of the flap. This article ( http://www.ipasource.com/Documents/Diction/Italian%20Transcriptions.pdf ) uses [r] word-initially, syllable-finally, and after consonants, [4] between vowels, and [rr] for the geminate. Could someone clear this up for me?

I'm a native speaker. It's a trill, only weaker than in Spanish and is front, not back as, say in German or French. It is both a flap and a tap, you strike the tip of your tongue against the front hard palate producing a vibration, like your blender. Try saying rrrrr, and then try this word several times: trentatré. Our physicians once had patients say it to feel the air in the lungs. Or you can try "Trentatré trentini andavano trotterellando a Trento" quite a treat for Italian speakers as well! R can be gemimated (spelling: rr), i.e. have a stronger, longer sound. --Wikipedius 15:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Spanish and Italian

If you know one of them,the other,I found is fairly easy to understand. Dudtz 1/10/06 9:46 PM EST