tolgs001 wrote:
>> Something does not fit here. Kapiert?
>
> I don't insist, it's a free country, and
> you are free to believe that the earth is
> a disc. ;^)
A friend of mine shoud have asked here " Ce are copita cu bojocii a
drege acilea?"
> But, at least, how about stella
> and steaua, sella - $(e)aua?
Sa , pl "Sei" but in the sense of Kreuz "Sale" or reg. "Sele"
> And why shouldn't
> the Romanian language be able to make out of
> a [l] an [wa]?
Because it has its own suffix "-ela" which is actually "-ealã".
>(Of course, only as feminine
> forms, for otherwise *stellu- would stay
> *stelu, *sellu- would stay *$elu. And even
> <sarmaua> gets a [wa]<->[l] correspondence in
> the plural, e.g. "sarmau/a rece" - "sarmale/le
> reci." In Maramures they say to tânjala
> tânjauã.)
>
>> Alex
>
> George
You got it! You see how easy? At least the first part, the easy one.
Let' see the observations:
1)For the undefinite feminine nouns in Rom. we have the following
final
desinences:
/-ã/, /-e/, /-ie/, /-a/, /-ea/
2) the "normal" desinence for feminine nouns in the definite forms is
/-a/
fatã-fata; lume - lumea; femeie-femeia
3)We have the funny /-ua/ as definite desinence for _only_ the nouns
which ends in /-ea/ and /-a/.
pafta-paftaua; sarma-sarmaua; viTea-viTeaua; belea-beleaua
Thus, there is indeed a different form between definite and indefinite
for each of these desincens, for not confounding them. Is this ending
in
/-ã,-e,-ie/ which are sounds different from /-a/, teh definite
desinence
is clear, different and it is /-a/.
For the rest of them, for these which ends in /-ea/ and /-a/ the
difference won't be there if one won't have an another suffix. If one
should have had the same desinence one should have had the theoretical
situation of:
belea-beleaa; sarma-sarmaa
Thus there it should have not been any difference more between
definite
and indefinite.
On this reason, it appears explanable that the speaker tried to make
the
difference between definite and indefinite for these nouns which ends
in
/-ea/ and /-a/ too.
That was the first part. The eassy one. The one with observations. The
hard one is the explanation . There is the question:
"OK, ok, the John , the ProtRomanian felt the need to make this
difference. Agreed. But why exactly with /u/ between the boths /a/
from
final? Why not an another sound? Why exactly this /-u-/ ?"
And this is in my opinion a very good question. Why /u/?
I siply stil don't affirm I know why. It is not entirely clear. One
can just speculate a bit on the basis of this.
Speculations:
a) one observe that for tematic verbs , the very old in the language,
in some verbs the trace of the final /-u/ whic now is mute is stil
mentained at the pers 1 sg. Coincidentaly or not, the verbs which show
this are mostly these of conjugation I and II. Why I say
coincidentaly? Because cong I has the inifinitive desinence /-a/ and
these of conj. II have the infinitive desinence /-ea/. Exactly as
both kind of nouns where we have again the /-u-/ introduced between
the both /-a/. Some example:
a da = to give, pers 1 sg = "eu dau" ( I give)
a sta = to stay, pers 1 sg = "eu stau" (I stay)
a vrea = to want, pers 1 sg = " eu vreau" ( I want)
a bea = to drink, pers 1 sg = " eu beau" ( I drink).
Was this the reason why the John PR introduced this /u/ there in the
definite form of the nouns which ends in /-a/ or /-ea/? I am not very
shure. Keine Ahnung! Ich kann es nicht sagen "mit höchst
wahrscheinliche
Sicherheit, der Protorumäne" "a facut pe dracul ghem". Frage mich
etwas leichteres zur Zeit.
I simply cannot tell , yes is this way. One has stil to work around.
b) there is from Latin -ella
c) there is from Greek -ela
d) your stuff here...
Alex