>Because it has its own suffix "-ela" which is actually "-ealã".
This is a weak reason; contradicted by the fact that
the... anonymous creators of languages always get to
situations in which they reimpose 1-2-3 suffixes for
the same fenomenon. (Again the Maramures example I gave
yesterday: tanjaua coexists with tanjeala; moreover:
your "-eala" coexists with most substantived infinitives,
e.g. <uSchire>-<uScheala>.) (My assumption is that you
haven't reflected enough on the alternance between
[l] and vowels/diphtongs in Romanian, i.e. not only
with respect to Latin -> Romanian transformations,
such as <leporem> -> <iepure> "hare," but also as far
as Romanian words only are concerned, such as in sing.
<cal>, plur. <cai> [kaj] "horse."
>1) For the undefinite feminine nouns in Rom. we have the following
>final desinences: /-ã/, /-e/, /-ie/, /-a/, /-ea/
Why do you have a problem when you realize that your
anonymous ancestors, i.e. creators of your idiom, in
some cases opted for the article being linked with an
"u" [actually a /wa/]?
> 2) the "normal" desinence for
You see? You yourself are aware of the fact that the
rule is a bit more complex than that. What would you
say of such feminine plurals that look like masculine
plurals, as in the popular <cãSi> instead of <case>
(the plural for <casã> "house")? Here, at least, you
have a non-standard plural, but in the case of
<cãmaSã> "shirt", the plur. is <cãmãSi>, not <*cãmaSe>.
Now how about that?! :^)
>3) We have the funny /-ua/ as definite desinence for _only_
>the nouns which ends in /-ea/ and /-a/.
What does here bother you? Of course one had to find a
solution for this encounter of the 3rd kind :-) -ea or
-a + the fem. def. article -a. So, your ancestors (well,
I dunno, perhaps your ancestors didn't take part in the
decision making process :^) opted for this [w], which
is written "u," in order to link these two a's, with
different functions, but unfortunately with the same
pronunciation [a].
There is an alternative, another solution for this, and
I know you prefer it: "l" [l]. So, feel free so say
*sarmala, *preduceala, *Steala Bucuresti, *vitzeala,
*ocala, *nuiala & the like in order to rhyme with
obiala, cheala, mardeala, raceala, finala, nicovala; but
I'm afraid the rest of the native-speaker crowd won't
follow suit.
>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.
That's why we have to fix it. :)
>But why exactly with /u/ between the boths /a/ from
>final? Why not an another sound? Why exactly this
>/-u-/ ?"
As shown above, there is the alternative [l], in lots
of cases. Only that the [l] does not fit *all* the cases.
Why? Because that's the will and volition of the vox
populi (asa vrea [SIC] muschii lui :-).
>And this is in my opinion a very good question.
And my opinion begs to differ: carpe diem (i.e. time is
money).
>Speculations:
>
>a) one observe that for tematic verbs, the very old in the
>language, in some verbs the trace of the final /-u/
In the examples above, it is [w] e.g. in <steaua>, not a
[u], as in <cucurigu> "cockadoodledo."
>whic now is mute is stil mentained at the pers 1 sg.
This is a completely different topic: eu voiu face, eu
trebuiu sa fac etc. Once (i.e. not very long ago; and
in some subdialectal regions perhaps still alive & kickin'),
this kind of -u was uttered as a full, clear [u] (and
was recommended to be written, although mute in modern
stantard Romanian, until April 1, 1954, along with the
other one, attached to nouns and adjectives that end
in -i: ochiu, vechiu, unchiu, ardeiu, biciu, razboiu,
reteveiu, vraciu etc. The ortho reform of 1954, the
so-called bolshie reform, abolished the muted "u,"
but tolerated it e.g. in <serviciu>, that stands along
with <servici.>
>Coincidentaly or not, the verbs which show
>this are mostly these of conjugation I and II.
And how about "a voi" (the IV.)? "eu voiu face"
>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).
I get the feeling I'm losing Ariadne's thread. A long way
from the starting block (remember? stella vs steaua, vitella
vs steaua, a dichotomy that prompts you to deny the Latin
origin of those words) up to here, where I don't get why
you're impressed by the u's and [w]'s in the verbs you
included in the lines above (indicative present, 1st pers.).
>b) there is from Latin -ella
>c) there is from Greek -ela
>d) your stuff here...
I'm afraid that the... "ghem," you invoked in the following
lines that I deleted for the sake of KB economy, tends to
turn into a nonsequitur Gordian knot, for which I don't have
the appropriate Toledo cutlery. :-)
>Alex
George