>The question is: why is the singular not *ghetz?r *ghietz?
>(by j-Umlaut /gjac&/ > /g(j)ec&/, as in the plural)?
Why [ea]Â and not [e]? I don't know. Perhaps because of
the final feminine [&]. Otherwise, we see that in <înghetz>,
a neuter, there's only an [e], no *[ea].
OTOH, the participially suffixed reflex <înghetzat&>
(feminine "frozen", incl. "icecream") doesn't restore
the diphtong.
The [ea]-[e] relationship is valid for the standard
language and Marius's and Alex's own subdialects.
As for those areas I keep mentioning, I'd put it this
way:
no vowel-diphtong, but a simple [a] versus [e]
relationship; following the same palatal G', i.e.
[g'atz&] vs. plural [g'etzurj].
Which, to people outside of this subdialectal
family, would look like this [gjatz&] and [gjetzurj],
because they don't have [gâ]. This is why the idea:
diphtong - [ja]Â or [ea]. A... fata morgana. But which
has become standard/official Romanian. Of course
it has: the DR. alphabet doesn't have any extra
sign for [k'] and [g'], because in the official standard
Romanian there ain't no such thing as [k'] and [g'].
Methinks in the Lat. c-l, g-l evolution to Rum.
che/chi_ghe/ghi there hasn't been any diphtong.
It was introduced... artificially as soon as groups
of Romanians forgot palatal stops altogether.
(IMHO).
(The next question would be: why sing. [a] and
plur. [e]? I don't know either. It could be a matter
of Umlaut or Ablaut.)
>mcv@...
George
PS: Indeed, ceatz&-cetzuri "fog"; greatz&-gretzuri "nausea";
(m&treatz& "dandruff" has no plural, but *m&tretzuri would
sound OK to any Rum. nat.-spe.); zeam&-zemuri "juice;
broth". But ceat&-cete "group; gand; crowd"; feat& (old for
fat&)-fete "girl, gal"; ceap&-cepe "onion"; stearp&-sterpe
"barren". But: cretzuri plur. of cretz "curl", and not of its
adjectival feminine variant "creatz&" (cf. adj. cretz, cretzi,
creatz&, cretze).