Re: [tied] Re: vulgar Latin ?

Daniel J. Milton wrote:

>> "-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

Dan, the weird thing here is that we have indeed a so-called continuum
from Dacia until Iberia with almost the same tribal names and same
toponyms. I am not sure if someone is interested about I could make a
compilation from the know sources (Herodotus, Hecateus, Strabo, Plinius,
Isidor, etc) for showing them.
Interesting enough, this so-called continuum is exactly in the Romance
space of today. If someone make the connection with this continuum and
the actual Romance, then is no wonder anymore about the "romanisation"
of the folks which have been living in these regions. There are even
testimonies of Latin writers speaking about dialectal particularitis of
the "hyspani" and this cannot have been due the influence of Latin since
it was writen at the time the Romans just begun to conquest Iberia.

Alex