Re: Etymology of Rome

> > Beekes:
> > "
> > 22. The Umbrians. Pliny (3, 112) states that the Etruscans
> > conquered 300 cities from the Umbrians (Trecenta eorum oppida
> > Tusci debellasse reperiuntur.). This clearly refers to the
> > `Landnahme'. This statement is confirmed by the river Umbro
> > (mod. Ombrone), which flows in its full length in Etruscan
> > territory. The river will have given its name to the people, or
> > vice versa. Anyhow, the river will have flowed in Umbrian
> > territory; so the Etruscans must have pushed the Umbrians out.
> > "
> >
> > which of course not a derivation, but it does make it likely
> > that the sequence was Umbrian -> Etruscan -> Latin


> Ok, with Pliny.
>
> But, based on what, Torsten, you deduce Umbrian -> Etruscan ->
> Latin for Rome etymology?
>
> In other words, based on what you suspect that Rome was initially
> an Umbrian city?

The Umbro river must have been inside Umbrian territory, so there
must have been Umbrians south of it. Pliny doesn't inform us of the
position of their southern border.

> The Latium toponyms are (in their great majority) Latins.

Hm, now that you mention it, I recall having read that too.

> So sorry, but I 'cannot see' what is your argumentation here:
> If 'some A are B' and 'some B are C' you try to come as a
> definitive conclusion that 'some A are C'? :)

I wrote 'likely', not 'definitive'.


Torsten