the fascination of illV

I guess is high time to put the point on the "i" and to show how fascinating
in the Romanistic world the word "illV" can be.

It-s reflexes in Romanian are considered to be as follow:
el ( he) < Lat. illum
ea (she) < Lat illa
�la ( that he one) < Lat illum
aia ( that she one) < Lat. illa
�ia ( these (masc)) < Lat. illum
alea( these (fem)) < Lat illa
al ( of) < Lat. illum
a( of) < Latin illa
ai (of masc. pl) < Latin illi
ale ( of fem. pl) < Latin ille

There are more of these *grosso modo said* , I don't remember right now
about all them and there is not really a need to. To summ-up, the reflexes
of Latin "illV" should be as follow:

el, ea, �la, aia, �ia, alea, al, a, ai, ale

They are little too much for my taste but let them this way here. Now, the
"creme de la creme", there are people which sustains there is "illa" > u"
for explaining "die:s" > "ziu�" trough an "die:s illa". Reichenkron
suspected if IndoEuropenist will put hand on hand with Romanist there will
be a big result. It seems it is not that way since the Romanist appears to
become blind when something does not fit with Latin there where they think
it must be ( no reason why) Latin.
Even phonologicaly the "die:s" does not fit. It should have yelded *dees.
Since it was so several times assumed that final "s" yelded "i" in
BalkanoRomanace ( what a pitty!!!), the word should have been *deei.
In fact on Latin "die:s" one can put what one wants , one can try to make a
dolly-doll from it and can dance so long he wants around, this word cannot
become a "ziu�" even with the help of the Pope.
I suggest that one take a look at PIE *die:us where the requested "u" is
there where it ought to be.

P.S.

Dear Miguel, if "Diana" was already "Djana" in Latin it should have entered
Romanian as "Djana" and it should have yeleded "Ziana".
And the word is there !!! There is the holiday of "S�nziana" which si Santa
Diana ( s�n+ziana, where s�n< Latin santu)
About your "diana" > "z�na" that is an absolutely utopy.

Alex