Re: [tied] Re: Etymology of Rome

From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 47800
Date: 2007-03-11

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:35:11 -0000, "Francesco Brighenti"
<frabrig@...> wrote:

>--- In, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
><miguelc@...> wrote:
>> 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 [= why did one get Ro:ma and
>> not *Ruma]?
>At least one onomastic correspondence between Etruscan and archaic
>Latin based, as it seems very likely, on the hypothesized parallel
>correspondence between the reconstructed Etr. etymon *ruma and the
>attested Lat. etymon ruma is available (see my post archived at
> ):
>that between the Etr. gentilic name *Rume-le-na (attested as RUMELNA
>in a 6th century BC funerary inscription from Orvieto -- the actual
>inscription reads [MI VELTHU]RUS RUMELNAS 'I (am the tomb of)
>Velthur Rumelna') and the Lat. gentilic name Ro:mulius/Ro:milius
>(with closed, i.e. long, /o/).
>Couldn't the phonetic correspondence between Etr. /u/ and Lat. /o:/
>seen in this onomastic equivalence point to Lat. Ro:ma < Etr. *Ruma

Of course. But it could just as well point to Lat. Ro:ma >
Etr. Ruma. And again, what evidence is there that in 7th or
6th century Latin /o:/ was closed?

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal