[tied] Re: vulgar Latin ?

From: Daniel J. Milton
Message: 21384
Date: 2003-04-29

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:

If for the words of Catus which are
> considered to be diminutivals I don't care too much, I care more
>about the toponyms. Here too a lot of diminutivals from Dacia until
Iberia.
> Are they indeed to explain trough a diminutival form?
> Tusculum, Nerulum, Trossulum, Vesulus, Batulum, Brundulus, etc.
> Seriously now, is there just a simple coincidence this suffix
> "-ul" + "um/us"?
>
> Alex
********
There was indeed an Italic (or pre-Italic?) formant '-ul' in
place, and especially tribal, names. Conway (11th Britannica)
wrote: "[Rutuli are] ranked by the form of their name with the
Siculi and Appuli (Apuli), probably also with the Itali, whose real
Italic name would probably have been Vituli. This suggests that
they belong to a fairly early stratum of the Indo-European
population of Italy."
'-ul' certainly wasn't an article, which I believe was absent in
early Italic, nor does it seem to be a diminutive. Is there a
suggested etymology? Sorry that my source and I are a century out
of date.
Dan