fortuna11111 wrote:
> 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"?
>
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I don't quite get it how explaining the -ul's as articles would help
> much
>
> Evelina
To help to what?
I just showed it because it is mentained the idea that the "-ul", "-uli"
is seen as a Latin property.
How we see from all the geographic space and tribal name this is not a
Latin property. We can just say Latin have has it too _among_ other
dialects of this geographic space. In Latin this "-ul" how Piotr
explained have had a diminutival function ( or better is better to say,
it changed in time in a diminutival suffix?).As for this diminutival
suffix "-ul" is considered as being lost as diminutival suffix in
current Romance. An another idea should be this diminutival suffix never
existed in Romance as diminutival , just the another one "-el" is
preserved .. suffix which was in all IE languages, in Latin too, having
as today has, a diminutival function.