Re: [tied] Rome [was: PIE word for "people"]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Grzegorz Jagodzinski" <grzegorj2000@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:28 AM
Subject: [tied] Rome [was: PIE word for "people"]


> As there are many ideas about the etymology of Rome, it is just unfair to
> assert that Ro:ma: can be the base for the PIE word for "people" - in
> fact,
> such a semantics is not being considered at all. Here are some views found
> on the Net but based on works of serious scholars.
>
> <--
> The old view, according to which Roma could be connected with ruma, rumon,
> 'a stream,' made it easy to explain the gate as the river-gate; but if the
> name is a tribal name, 'why can we not explain the porta Romana most
> easily
> by supposing that this powerful Etruscan clan, or family, dwelt at this
> north-west corner of the hill - where tradition puts the first settlement,
> and that the gate, as well as the whole enclosure, got its name from this
> fact?' A still later view is that of Herbig (BPW 1916, 1440 ff., 1472 ff.,
> summarised by Nogara in DAP 2.xiii.279 and BC 1916, 141), that Roma is the
> latinized form of the Etruscan ruma, 'breast' (cf. Varro, RR ii.11.5:
> mamma
> enim rumis sive ruminare) and as a proper name means 'large breasted,'
> i.e.
> strong or powerful.
> -->
>
> (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/_Texts/PLATOP*/Porta_Romana.html)
>
>
>
> <--
> The etymology of Roma was a mystery even in Classical Antiquity. There is
> no
> explanation from Latin. There are even explanations from Etruscan, where
> the
> name is Ruma; but of course you cannot expect good etymology from an
> unknown
> language.
> -->
>
> (http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/WHYROME.htm)
>
> <--
> W. Schulze (Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen, 581 f; Roma, Gründung
> der etruskische Gens Ruma, 218 und 518 ff: Ramnes Tities Luceres,
> etruskische Gentilnamen) published a theory, in which it is assumed that
> even the name ROMA would be directly derived from the Etruscan language.
> Usually, the explanation of this name has been sought in the adaptation by
> the Etruscans of the Greek (i.e. Corinthian-Dorian) word "Rhômè/Rhômà",
> which would have become "Rûmà" in Etruscan and "Rôma", used by the local
> population, the Romans. By the way, the word in Greek means "force". So,
> instead of the usual explanation, Schulze's theory was, that the name RUMA
> (>Roma) was given immediately by the Etruscans and that Etruscan clans had
> been directly involved in the foundation of Rome.
> -->
>
> (http://www.geocities.com/jackiesixx/caere/ritus.htm)
>
> <--
> There are also diverse theories on the origns of the name Rome. One,
> partly
> discredited in ancient times, suggests it derived from the Greek 'Rhome',
> which meant strength or force. Another suggests its came form the word
> Rumon, introduced by the Etruscans whose territory extended up to the
> Tiber
> and siginified river.
>
> It could also have derived from the Greek 'Reuma', which meant flow, and
> thus once again 'river'.
>
> Finally, a source suggets that Rome comes from Ruma, perhaps an archaic
> Latin term meaning an animal's breast, hence hill.
>
> Anyway, Ruma was what the Etruscans actually first called Rome. It is not
> to
> be ignored that in ancient Anatolian idiom 'Ruma' meant village. There
> were
> many city states in Etruria.

***
Patrick:

I have not 'snipped' because I think the above is interesting material.

What "Anatolian" language provided the "idiom"; and, does not ruma
strengthen the proposal rather than detract from it?

***


> -->
>
> (http://www.deliciousitaly.com/etruria2b.htm)
>
>
> And finally, the Mc Callister's explanation:
>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:36:56 -0500
> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> Sender: The NOSTRATIC mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> From: Rick Mc Callister <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Etruscan *remna, remzna vs. Latin Roma, Pontius
> Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> In I documenti etruschi [1996], our list colleague Adolfo Zavaroni has
> rem-z-na as the Etruscan equivalent of the Roman name "Pontius" --i.e.
> Etruscan families named Remzna used the name Pontius when writing Latin
>
> I seem to remember that Palmer and others had postulated *remna as a
> precursor of Ruma, Roma
>
> Zavaroni links "Pontius" < *pont- to Greek puthme/n & Latin fondus and
> links remzna to IE words meaning "support" [He sees Etruscan as IE]
>
> But, given that "Pontius" strongly resembles "pons, pontis", then could
> *remna essentially mean "bridge, ford". I'm thinking of Rome's location as
> a
> citadel overlooking a river crossing [Isn't it the only natural crossing
> for
> miles around?]
>
>
>
> (http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9906&L=nostratic&D=1&F=&S=&P=72)
>
>
>
> Grzegorz J.
>

***
Patrick:

After what I consider to have been a bad start, now we are investigating
this matter in an organized and responsible fashion.

McCallister's explanation is interesting but, in my opinion, neglects the
obvious difference between ruma(x) and rem-z-na, namely the vowel quality
and probably, but not surely, the vowel length. We are all familiar with PIE
*re/om-, 'support' (probably pre-PIE *ram(V)). We do have *romti- from it
but notice, the *o is _not_ long. I am not familiar enough with Etruscan
word-formation processes to offer an opinion as to whether -z-na would be
appropriate for forming 'bridge' from *re/om-, 'support', but I would not
rule it out. I do think the semantics are a bit dodgy.

In my opinion, McCallister's connection of ruma(x) and remzna is not at all
justified by the considerations he offers.

***