>But please take a look on the Aromanian form: Ar. fluearã and
>please remember also that e>ea took place too only on a stressed
>syllable when in the next syllable we have an e or an ã
What's the problem? In the Aromanian variant as well: -eara is the
suffix. It doesn't matter if one utters it with an *audible* "legatto"-[j]
or without it -- the vowels after <flu-> do not represent any relic or
elision of anything related to <flu->. And the Aromanian flueara
has a similar counterpart in Romanian, esp. in the subdialectal
regions of the province of Transylvania: fluiera (the feminine variante
of the neuter fluier). Cf. the folk song from which I'm quoting:
"Zi, bade, cu fluiera / ca tzi-oi coase mitzera".
>For the Aromanian form see Rosetti at:
Unless we don't *hear ourselves* how <flueara> is pronounced,
we don't know whether -eara is pronounced [ea-ra] or rather
[jae-ra].
Always keep in mind that, Romanian and Aromanian dialectal
occurrences cannot be *all* rendered by the Romanian standard
spelling: there are sounds that can be reflected in written form
only by making use of additional graphemes (or of the API/IPA
alphabet). This is also very needed whenever the pronunciation
in some subdialects of Romanian needs to illustrate the palatal
t's, d's (or k's, g's), as well as the vowels [ae] and [open-o]
that are known to South-Eastern Romanians only from hearsay.
>But both /l/ /n/ should be preserved in Aromanian (ex: Rom. frâu >
>Ar. frân and lj > l' in Aromanian)
Not only there, but also in Romanian, esp. in the Banat subdialect:
e.g. <tu spuni> [tu spun~] instead of <tu spui> [spuj] "you say;
you tell". This pattern is attested in writings in other Romanian
areas as early as the 15th century (in the so-called "Maramures
texts").
>that is not the case for fluier.
Indeed, it doesn't seem to be the case.
George