Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
> stellam illam > steawã-wa > steao-a > steaua
>
> Here we have regular -wã- > -o, and regular -wa > -a everywhere,
> giving stea-o-a > steaua, as expected.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
>
There is nothing regular Miguel. But let us read a bit.
ille, -a, -ud ( late Latin "-um"; Dat. sg. F. "-ae" old and late
Latin "o:" and Gen. "-eius" just late Latin), Old Latin and archaic
( in vulgar Latin in "illuc" too), "illic", "-aec, auc"(*ille-ce )
etc, "-uc(c)" from "*-ud-ce", compare "istu(c)= that one (opp. "hic",
"iste"); familiar Pron. 3-th pers. ="is", vulgarlatin and in Rom like
"ipse" in the function of article ( begining with XII tab. rom
[ in accentuation as "accellum"], in the same way, "illac" ( there),
( paralel form to *illace), ... etc.etc.etc.
This demonstrative pronoun is a derivative of the italic pronoun
"ollus",with feminie "ulas"(illius), dialectal Latin "olaus", etc.
The form with "olle-" has been sweped out in the time by the
form "ille".
If we have the linguistic posiblity ( ir should be clear that
from "olla" , "ullus" there are no dificulties in making Rum.
derivative.
Miguel, the regular change is from this "ollu" and "ulla" not from
"ille".
Do you agree?