Re: the fascination of illV

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

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" wrote:

> > 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.

What hapened to the consonant of _illa_ - irregularly dropped?

> > 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").

You still have to explain the vowel Romanain vowel /i/. Or have I
missed a subtle trick? Where does the plural -i corresponding to
singular -e (3rd declension in Latin terms) come from? Is there a
special development of Latin final -e:s?

Richard.