Re: [tied] the fascination of illV

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

>
> Apart from the errors and omissions in the above (the demonstrative

forms

> have affixed -a, so that <ãla> is not from illum, but from

(probably)

> <illum hac>; the plurals are not from illum/illa but of course from
> illi/illae; the forms al, ai, etc. are just forms of the

preposition <ad>

> with suffixed definite article).

--snip: to long for answering now. I will revert in the evening on
this subject ----

> >
> >Dear Miguel, if "Diana" was already "Djana" in Latin it should

have entered

> >Romanian as "Djana" and it should have yeleded "Ziana".
>
> No, that's just your ignorance. It yielded zânã.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

I very doubt about. Beside the phonetical aspects you handle how you
like, what does you make think that the name of the godess "Diana"
yelded in Rom. "zânã" (fee)and in Alb. "zênã"(fee)?
Just the idea "it can be only Latin"? Any special reasons to presents
here?

Alex