--- 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?
I have written that in some message on cybalist: it's post-tonical
-lla- which loses regularly the consonant (or converts it in /w/).
>>> 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/.
From "illa", possibly combined with a potential regular exit of /i:/
in a Latin attested /di:es/ instead of /dies/, eventually closing the
exitus of /e/.
> Or have I missed a subtle trick?
There is no trick, just die(s)+illa used as regular formula.
> 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?
This has little to do with the discussed issue. Some people advocate
for
this special development in Romanian & Italian; I still think the
reason
has to do with analogy and establishment of -i as plural morpheme as
in
some common monosyllabs like nos > noi, vos > voi (It., Rom.) and at
2nd
declension (lupus/lupi, Nom. Pl. lupi), as I. Fischer hints out:
"Plural
Nominative [3rd declension] in -e:s [...] can phonetically evolve to
Rom.
/-i/, evolution affected also, for masculines, by 2nd declension
(especially
by its adjectives accorded with masculines of 3rd declension)". There
is no
clear ultimate agreement on the origin of this feature, for instance:
"la desinenza di questi [nomi derivati dalla terza declinazione] in
-ES,
tanto al nominativo quanto all'accusativo può evolvere a /-i/ per la
palatalizzazione della vocale provocata da -S (MONTES > monti)" (Paolo
D'Achille - Breve grammatica storica dell'italiano), opinion shared by
G. Patota - Lineamenti di grammatica storica dell'italiano: "Come si
spiega il passaggio -E:S > /i/? La -S finale ha <<palatalizzato>> la
E:
latina(che avrebbe dovuto dare una [e] e l'ha trasformata in [i]. È un
caso analogo a quello che ha prodotto la /-e/ del plurale dei nomi in
/-a/:
la -S ha attirato nella sua orbita articolatoria la -E, trasformandola
nella
[i], vocale palatale per eccellenza.", while Alberto Varvaro -
Linguistica
romanza, after stressing that "Apparentemente la spiegazione dei
plurali
italiani è molto semplice [...]", hints out a series of difficulties
without
a clear conclusion, ending up with "Il romeno ha pur'esso la
terminazione
/-i/.". Another theory links it with an equivalent form in -is: "Anche
il
morfema pl. /-i/ dei nomi della III declinazione (it. <cani>, rom.
<câini>)
può derivare dall'acusativo pl. -ES (lat. <canes>), attraverso la
forma -IS
(<canis>), che sostituisce spesso quella originaria nel latino tardo.
Stando
alla seconda ipotesi, è possibile ricondurre anche il plurale
italiano,
romeno, e verosimilmente dalmatico, all'accusativo latino, proprio
come
per l'area occidentale (Renzi/Andreose - Manuale di linguistica e
filologia
romanza), idea mentioned but also criticized by Rosetti.
I don't think one can reach the consensus on this issue, maybe Miguel
would
like to make some further comments.
Regards,
Marius Iacomi