Re: [tied] Re: Gland

On Wed, 12 May 2004 18:23:59 +0000, tolgs001
<st_george@...> wrote:

>>The question is: why is the singular not *ghetz?r *ghietz?
>>(by j-Umlaut /gjac&/ > /g(j)ec&/, as in the plural)?
>
>Why [ea] 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.

That's understandable in unstressed position.

>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].

I don't think there is such a vast difference between
[g'ats&] and [gjats&]: it's a matter of degree (and
notation).

The surprising thing is that g'a-/gja- becomes g'e-/g(j)e-
in the verbal forms you mention, and in the plural, but not
in the singular. Early merger of /gja-/ and /gea-/, as
Marius Iacomi suggests would solve that problem for the
literary dialect, but not for Moldavian etc., where such a
merger did not take place(?).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...