On 24.11.2004, at 08:24, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
>> But why to have a-e -> e-e in case of 'vatra' and not to have it
>> in case of 'raTa/raTe'
In some subdialectal areas of Romania, there is a second plural
(which isn't included in the DEX) <rãte> ['r&-Te].
Also: casã, plur. case (which is both standard & high style), but
an enormous number of native-speakers from all subdialectal
regions of Romania rather use the popular plural cã$i [k&S<aspiration>].
As for vatra-vetre, I'd also take into consideration the possibility
that people have opted for the [e] in the plural merely influenced by
similarities with other words, where the plural [e] is even
etymologically justified, cf. e.g. panã-pene.
Moreover, this alternance (which evokes vocal harmonies patterns extant
in languages where this is a must) can also be found in verbs, e.g. "to
let": el lasã and imperativ lasã! <-> subjunctiv sã lase (which is
standard), but sã lese (which is popular in virtually all subdialectal
regions of Romania, with the only diference that in Transylvania, Banat
and Maramure$ the first [e] is rather [æ]). Also cf. the alternance in
the Simple Perfect of "stay" and "give", namely in the popular and old
variants "stete" and "dete" (cf. Lat. dediu), instead of the standard
"stãtu" and "dãdu".
But look at this: sing. spatã, plur. spate (a part of the loom) /
spatã, spate (archaic variant of modern spadã, spade "sword, rapier;
sabre") / spatã, spete (shoulder blade or the entire shoulder-blade
area of the back: hence the confusion in using the locution <lat in
spete> or <lat in spate> meaning an athletic, broad-shouldered person,
since...) <spate, spate> "back; rear part of the body;" is the main
variant and notion (with all connotations, incl. e.g. the part of a
chair/stool) and which is also interchangeable with the synonym
<spinare, spinãri>. For all of them, the ancestor is seen to be Lat.
spatha. So the Romanian native-speaker has opted for an additional
[e]-plural, <spete>, which even causes confusions, since many people
(especially in subdialectal areas where <spete> is less in use or not
at all) don't always know what's meant whenever they hear <spete>: the
upper + middle + lower back or only the upper part of it, with
shoulderblades and only with insertions of, say, the latissimus.
By the same token, the Romanian native-speaker naturally tends (with or
without justification) to transform the suffix sing. -ian into plur.
-iene, and not -iane: e.g. cotidian, cotidiene (daily newspaper); even
in names, e.g. Adrian, vocative: Adriene! instead of Adriane!
(So, methinks the rule must comprise more aspects, or one has to take
into consideration... contagion. :-)) I for one wouldn't be surprised
to hear that in some Romanian subdialect people also say veatrã; I
can't confirm it, but it wouldn't suprise me. Noteworthy: the poker is
<vãtrai> [v&*traj]; the fonetic variant [va'traj] can be expected only
in Moldavia; but ironically it is this Romanian subdialect which is the
closest to the Aromanian dialect, which in turn is the only one
nextdoor neighbor to the Tosk area, geographically. Moreover, in
<bãtrân> "old person/animal" < Lat. veteranus, practically only in
Moldavia you encounter the variant <batrân> as well, whereas in the
rest of subdialects the schwa must be part of the 1st syllable. This'd
be then an [a] < [&] < [e] relationship, which is (at least IMHO) quite
strange, given that the same native speakers in many occasions prefer
the opposite relation [a] > [&] or even [a] > [e], and not always in
cases where the singular once had at least an [ea] diphtong or a
subdialectal [æ] (namely the origin of that diphtong).
> Piotr
George