>that is great ! the "illa" > "a" , "u" , "o", "e", "ã"
> 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 wrong. See below.
> >> [...] 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_.
> 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
> > The difficult part of the argument is Latin _die:_ > _zi_.Correct about Aromanian. And there is no posiblity to get it from any
> > _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
> Sânziene < Sanctus dies Johannis.there are some people who are pretty goods in translating Latin. What
> Marius Iacomi