>For this kind of thoughts, I wil bring Latin "sera" > "searã"
>in Rom. and not "Sarã" as expected after the example terra
> >Tarã.
You put this sentence on display, as though there weren't a...
majority, yes a majority, of Romanian native-speakers cum
foreigners who day after day say "sara bunã", "bunã sara",
"de cu sarã" etc., i.e. with a clear big bright [a], and no
trace of the (standard-language) diphtong [ea] -> <seara.>
>The example with "teamã" would fit too since there should have
>been expected "Tamã" (tzam&)
Perhaps because in the origin of it the root included
another vowel than [e], i.e. unlike in <terra>, don't
you think?
>If yes, how is the definite form for the words
>which ends in /-(e)au&/ in Aromanian ?
I don't know exactly, but I expect it to be as in
the Northern dialect of Roumanian: -(e)aua [(e)a-wa].
There are some words having both endings as acknowledged,
valid endings: -ea & -eauã. With the definite artcle,
both turn invariably -eaua. (e.g. nea & neauã => neaua
"snow"). (Moreover, this applies to <zi> "day" too,
although the ending vowel is a different one: <zi> and
<ziuã> & <zîuã> & <zuã => plural <zile> or <zîle>,
cum article: <zilele>, <zîlele>. So, no reason to worry
that the... wawa pedal won't work. :^)
>I fail to see any connection with -ella > /-ua/
This is obvious.
>you assume that the same word "vitella" has given once "vitea" and a
>second time "viteaua". Since today the forms are distinct
They aren't distinct, they are still alive in subdialects
<o vitzea> (especially in subdialects of the South, including
your own one) and <o vitzeauã> (especially in western and
northern subdialects). These singular variants *coexist* (as
shown above with nea + neauã, zi + ziuã => this one being
pan-Romanian without exception). So, don't try to see a precipice
between these variants of the singular of these certain nouns.
Your <vitzea> and <vitzeauã> in neighboring counties (moreover,
there are also these variants <vitzá> + <vitzáuã>, i.e.
without
diphtongation [ea]) are the same: none produces more meat than
the other. :-) Both "races" are the same whith the defin. art.:
<vitzeaua> or <vitzaua> [vi-'Tea-wa, vi-'Ta-wa]. (The latter
sounds quite... Japanese in the subdial. variant ghitzaua
[g(^)i-'Ta-wa], doesn't it? :))
>one will ask you why once it gave /ea/ and once /-ua/.
Here's no answer to be given, than that it's been the
people's choice ("das Volk redet, wie's ihm der Schnabel
gewachsen ist" :). The only thing one can distinguish is
that in certain areas, including yours, the preference will
be -ea without that (indeed superfluous) additional -uã
[-w&], and that in other (vast) areas of the Daco-Romanian
dialect people will leave out the additional -uã attached
to -ea only in very official situations (incl. writing),
i.e. in situations where those native-speakers know they
are expected to show some... stiff upper lips in the
current affairs of everyday's life. ;^)
I for one, grew up in the -eauã subdialectal medium.
So, to me, the unarticled singular feminina <vitzeauã,
neauã, (d)zîuã, cãtzauã> and the like are the most
natural lexemata & phonetic occurrences in the world.
So it is <sarã>, <sara>. To me, <searã>, <seara> are
"imported" words from the official-standard language
or from subdialects beyond the Carpathians range.
>Alex
George