--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 10:14:40 +0000, tolgs001
> <st_george@...> wrote:
>
>>>4) ja > e (not in Aromanian: kl^ae, not cheie "key")
>>>
>>> [/glakja/ > /glaca/ > /gl^aca/ > /gl^ac&/ > /gjac&/
>>
>> Up to here.
>>
>>>/gec&/ = ghetz-]
>>
>> These are not extant in the DR dialect. There is only
>> the diphtongued variant ['gea-tz&], which happens
>> to be the one chosen for the artificial standard language,
>> because of (historically explained) influences exerted
>> by the Muntenia subdialects. I underline: take [ea] as
>> a diphtong. The [e] as a distinct vowel occurs in the
>> plural only, as you've already mentioned:
> >
> >>This is the plural form (ghetzuri).
>
> But is <ghetzuri> also the plural in places where the
> singular is ghiatzã /g^ac&/? Or is is <ghiatzuri> there?
AFAIK, <ghiatzuri> does not exist. Might be to hear out some
<ghietzuri> but this is rather rare.
I think the whole story about vowels in the 1st syllable is
slightly excessive. To put it into clear: in Romanian there
is no phonetical distinction between "e" and "i" as first
diphthong elements when preceeded by "ch" or "gh" (which is
also phonematically supported by inexistence of opposition
in these specified conditions). So in the normal voicing [gjac&],
the palatal glide (as diphthong element) can be interpreted as
well (at a phonematical level) as /e/ or as /i/. It happens
that most people have reinterpreted this as /e/ and analogically
rebuilt the umlaut sequence according to the last syllable vowel;
in other words the spoken [gjac&] was phonematically perceived
not as /g(ja)c&/ but as /g(ea)c&/ since the two are pronounced
the same way, the latter form was sustained by plural umlaut
-ea-& <-> é-i. If the spelling of the singular does not make the
difference in pronouncing (for non-syllabic [j], as expected),
the plural form with /e/ is fixing the phoneme and justifies
the actual spelling <gheaT&>.
Non-diphthongued pronouncing of the word (with syllabic /i/)
is rather uncommon and hypercorrect.
Regards,
Marius Iacomi