[tied] Re: Gland

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Wed, 12 May 2004 16:22:01 +0000, m_iacomi wrote:
>
>>--- 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-]

[...]

>>> 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
>> [...] 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&>. [...]
>
> The question is: why is the singular not *ghetzã or *ghietzã
> (by j-Umlaut /gjac&/ > /g(j)ec&/, as in the plural)?

Because there was no /gec&/ phase to be considered: as said,
/gjac&/ was naturally perceived as /g(ea)c&/ very early. And the
umlaut alternance is the very same as in /c^(ea)c&/ - /c^ecuri/.
Why would the diphthong (ea) got reduced to *é or *ié in that
position, as far as the final syllable has /&/?!

Regards,
Marius Iacomi