Re: the fascination of illV

From: altamix
Message: 30681
Date: 2004-02-05

--- In, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> Italian: egli/elli, ella, elli/egli(no), elle, lo (> il), la,
> gli, le, lui, loro, etc.
> > However, isn't the -a in the Romanian demonstratives an extra
> > morpheme?
> Yes, it's the reminder of a supplementary demonstrative, required
> if the noun remains unprecised: you cannot say "acel vorbeSte" but
> "acela vorbeSte" (or: "acel om vorbeSte"). It's obviously the same
> "illa" > "-a" of the definite article.

that is great ! the "illa" > "a" , "u" , "o", "e", "ã"
All the gama of vowels appear to be possible from this form. Who
speaks here about seriosity? Or do I have to say "helplessness" of
knowing to explain it better?

> >> [...] there is "illa" > u" for explaining "die:s" > "ziuã"
> >> trough an "die:s illa".
> >
> > Or people who interpret that argument that way!
> This is Murphy: no matter how clear you make your explanations,
> there will allways be someone able to misunderstand you. :-)
> > Remember that _stella illa_ > _steaua_ proceeeds something like
> > _stélla illa_ > _stéllalla_ > _stéauauã_ > _stéaua_.

That is wrong. See below.

> Well, that's more like stélla > steáuã and demonstrative illa > -a
> which attaches naturally as definite article to make -a instead of
> -ã; the ending -uã is unstable in Daco-Romanian and gets lost for
> the unarticulated form, unlike in other dialects.

Do I hear it from a native speaker? I understand that Richard can
compare "ziuã" with "stea" but not a native speaker which affirms he
understand more as other of lingusitic issues.

There is no comparation of "steaua" with "ziua" and these who want to
do it, they simply compare bones with coins showing their
incapability of distinction between two different things.

To remember: undefinited feminine nouns which ends in /-ea/ & /-a/
have the mark for definite an /-ua/ and the fem. nouns (and msc. too,
see tatã > tata); these fem. nouns which undefinited ends in /-ã/ are
marked with /-a/ when definited.

In the both examples given here, we have as follow:

Nom. sg. undefinited / Nom. sg. definited

ziuã ziua ( ziuã + a)
stea steaua (stea +ua)

thus, the Latin "stella" which is assumed to give "stea" shows a
change of "ella" > "ea" (it doesn't matter the phonological way to
change in this discution) and this "ea" _is not_ "uã".

Is it clear enough that one compares bones with coins or not?

> > The difficult part of the argument is Latin _die:_ > _zi_.
> > _mie_ 'me, to me' seems to offer a parallel.
> There is no need of parallel, remember your own example. "zi" is
> simply a DR backformation from "ziuã" < "dies illa" by loss of
> final unstable ending -uã (there is no "zi" in Aromanian, only
> "ziuã").

Correct about Aromanian. And there is no posiblity to get it from any

> Sânziene < Sanctus dies Johannis.

> Marius Iacomi

there are some people who are pretty goods in translating Latin. What
should mean this "Sanctus dies Johanis" in a time after III century?
Is not that day which is known as "Dies Sanctus Johanis"?

But , to our word:

Is this not a big laugh number?

Sanctus dies Johanis > Sân (lat) zi(Rom) ioan(Greek)
sân = reduced form of "sânt" < Vlat. santus
zi= backformation from Rom. "ziuã"
ioan < Iohanes
sân+zi+ioan > sânzioan but never "sânzianã" (floare de sânzianã)

In fact just the fact that the "zi" there is the backformation
from "ziuã" excluded the funny etymology supposed . There is
no "Sanctus dies Johanis" > sânzianã