Re: Etymology of Rome

> The linguistic arguments offered by Pittau are limited to
> the supposition that Ruma is an Etruscan word ("A mio
> giudizio questa difficoltà si può superare se si accetta la
> ipotesi - già prospettata da parecchi studiosi - che tanto
> ruma «mammella» quanto il toponimo Roma siano vocaboli di
> origine etrusca <21>."), and that Etruscan /u/ (Etruscan had
> no /o/) gives /u/ or /o:/ in Latin ("vocaboli etruschi
> entrati nel latino hanno visto la loro originaria u (scritta
> Y oppure V) conservarsi tale e quale oppure trasformarsi in
> o lunga e cioè stretta."). It is true that /u/ and /o:/
> merge as closed /o/ in Vulgar Latin (while /o/ gives open
> /O/), but it seems rather doubtful to me whether one can
> trace this back to the very origins of the city of Rome. I'm
> in no position to judge the (onomastic) evidence presented
> [especially in view of the Vulgar Latin merger of /u/ and
> /o:/]: "etr. Amuni, lat. Amunius e Amonius; etr. Clute, lat.
> Clutius, Cludius (aggett. cludus) e Clotius, Clodius
> (aggett. clodus); etr. Crus'ni, lat. Crusius e Crosius; etr.
> Cursni, lat. Cursenus e Corsinius; glossa etr. garouleou
> «crisanteno», lat. Carullius e Carollius; etr. Fului, lat.
> Fulvius e Folvius; etr. Funei, lat. Funius e Fonius; etr.
> Murias', lat. Murrius e Morrius <22>; etr. Plute, lat.
> Plutius e Plotius; etr. Prute, lat. Brutus e Protius; etr.
> Puntna, appellattivi lat. funtana, funtes e fontes; etr.
> Purce, lat. Purcius e Porcius; etr. Rusci, lat. Ruscius e
> Roscius <23>." Length is not marked in the above examples,
> and neither is the period of attestation (e.g. a late
> "Folvius" means nothing, an early one might be relevant).
>
> After reading Pittau's article, I'm still left with the
> question: If we have <Rumina> and the <ficus ruminalis>,
> perché si è avuto Ro:ma e non *Ruma?

There is an unwritten premise in this argument; that Latin
was a homogenous language, without dia- and sociolects.
That can't be true, we know eg. that /au/ vs. /o/ was a
social shibboleth in Latin even in classical times.
Many cases of phoneme alternation in Latin can be traced
to dialect forms, most often Umbrian. Latin has ruber "red",
ru:fus "redhead", in which the -f- of the latter conforms
to the Umbrian rufru "red"; ro:bus "red" (of oxen) is said
by Romans themselves to be rustic. In this case we have
Umbrian /u/ : High Latin /u/ : Low Latin /o:/.
It would make sense to believe that rules for "vowel
translation" from Etruscan to Latin were the same as those
from Umbrian to Latin. And therefore it might have been
'High Latin' Rumina (in the language of priests etc) and
'Low Latin' Ro:ma.

According to Buck: A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian /o/ > /u/
before /r/, but /u/ > /o/ before /m/ (§§ 50-51). Interestingly,
all Pittau's examples of Etr. /u/ vs. Latin u, o:(?) are of
the form -RV- or -VR- where R is a liquid or nasal.

Ernout-Meillet (and probably everyone else) keeps Latin
ruma/rumis "teat" and ru:men/ru:ma "first stomach of ruminants"
separate. That's not necessarily necessary, cf Jupiter
Ru:minus, the nourishing Jupiter. As for the connection
with the sense "fold, bend" cf. Latin sinus "fold", but
also the fold in the dress which was used as a pocket
and also "dans lequel les mères portait leurs enfants
(in sinu: gesta:re)", also figuratively "bosom" and "asylum"
(which Rome was in the beginning), cf also Latin ru:ga
"fold" (*ru:- borrowed as *ruG-?), also "road" (-> Romance
rua, rue).


Torsten