Re: the fascination of illV

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> 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
> ãla ( that he one) < Lat illum
> aia ( that she one) < Lat. illa
> ãia ( these (masc)) < Lat. illum
> alea( these (fem)) < Lat illa

I trust these are dittographic errors for illi: and illae!

> 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, ãla, aia, ãia, alea, al, a, ai, ale

You think that's bad? Look at what they trot out for French:

il, elle, ils, elles, le, la, les, lui, eux, leur.

However, isn't the -a in the Romanian demonstratives an extra
morpheme?

> 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" > "ziuã" trough an "die:s illa".

Or people who interpret that argument that way! Remember that
_stella illa_ > _steaua_ proceeeds something like _stélla illa_ >
_stéllalla_ > _stéauauã_ > _stéaua_. The difficult part of the
argument is Latin _die:_ > _zi_. _mie_ 'me, to me' seems to offer a
parallel.


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.

The rule only applies in monosyllables - neither the nominative
_die:s_, accusative _diem_ nor the ablative _die:_ is a monosyllable.

> 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 "ziuã" 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.

Wouldn't that give you something like *zeu? That still isn't _ziuã_=
.

> 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 "Sânziana" which

si Santa

> Diana ( sân+ziana, where sân< Latin santu)

> About your "diana" > "zâna" that is an absolutely utopy.

I quote from my dictionary: _utopia_ 'place of condition of ideally
perfect government'. Yes, that just about sums up the relationship
of '_dia:na_ > _zânã_' - the relationship of developments and rules =

is perfect!

Richard.