Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
> Unstressed:
> illam > ella > lla > wa > o.
that doesn't work. The solution of Mr Iacomi looks more plausible since
loosing the "n" from "unã" there is an "uã" which is more like "o".
The lla > wa > o is simply nothing since there should be phoneticaly
something else (lla > ia)
> Stressed:
> íllam > Élla > iélla > iéwa > ieá > iá
>
> Unstressed:
> illum > ellu > lu (Arom.) > l (îl)
> Stressed:
> íllum > Éllu > iél (written: el)
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>
1)Miguel, do you intend to say that illum / illam have been in Latin
used stressed and unstressed ?
2)Accepting the palatalisation of "ll" there must be a kind of "i"
there,instead of "ll", it cannot be lost in the air. And indeed there
is one,we see it in the conjugation of the verb to take
(a lua< Letin levare):
iua, iei, ia, luãm, luaTi, iau, conjunctiv. "sa ia", with dialectal
form "sã ieie".
For this we can see in "illam" the following changes:
illam > Ella > iella > ieia > ia ( ieie > ia = I guess trough sincope
of "e")
What seems very curious is the "u" here for 1 & 2 pl:
noi luãm, voi luaTi.
I wonder wherefrom come this "u" since in "levare" is no "u" accepting
the "v" dropped down.The desinences for pl. are as usual not othere
(-ãm, -aTi). How is to explain the "u" here ?