Re[2]: [tied] PIE word for "people"

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 40594
Date: 2005-09-25

At 11:35:53 PM on Saturday, September 24, 2005, Patrick Ryan

> From: "Grzegorz Jagodzinski" <grzegorj2000@...>

>> Patrick Ryan wrote:

>>> For PIE, we would reconstruct *ro:m-, seen in Latin

>>> Ro:ma: and Gypsy rom, 'man'; Old Indian ra:ma-, 'name of
>>> people'

>> Extremally doubtful, I would even say that it is a vulgar
>> etymology.

> Learn how to spell then we will consider all claims of
> vulgarity, including whether you are displaying
> _extremally_(sic!) vulgar rudeness.

Even if you were as competent in Polish as Grzegorz is in
English, this would be uncalled for, especially since it's
quite possible that he is using 'vulgar' as in 'Vulgar
Latin' and simply means a popular or folk etymology.

>> 2) Are there towns or villages called just "people"? I am
>> just curious because it seems highly improbable.

> It is common all over the world for tribal names to be
> simply '(hu)men' in the language of the designators. If
> you do not know that already, you should excuse yourself
> from the discussion, and do some serious reading. "Bridge"
> or "ford" as a tribal name sounds idiotic to me.

Indeed. But Grzegorz is talking about names of towns and
villages, not tribal names.

>> 4) I have not found **ra:ma- 'name of people' - if
>> anybody has found, please cite the source. All I have
>> been able to find is ra:ma- 'dark, black, pleasant,
>> beautiful', also 'kind of deer' and nomen proprium Ra:ma

> Try Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Sir Monier
> Monier-Williams, p. 877: "pl. N. of a people".

Available in scanned images at
<> and in
searchable Unicode at
<>, among other

> Go back whence you came and where you did not learn
> English, and add better manners to your course of study.

Speaking as a moderator, I recommend that you take that
second directive to heart. Soon. It is possible to
express disagreement without larding it with gratuitous