Re: Etymology of Rome

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

>
>
> > I. I think that your supposition
> >
> > > > b) PIE *sru-ma > Latin Roma ? 'Directly-from-PIE' or 'via
> > > > Etruscan'? :)
> >
> > deserved the above sign.
> >
> > If I'm wrong, you can prove this trying to derive it correctly,
> > either via PIE->Etruscan->Latin either directly PIE->Latin...
> > But until than , please allow me to use the sign :) for such an
> > idea..
>
> Beekes:
> "
> 22. The Umbrians. Pliny (3, 112) states that the Etruscans

conquered

> 300 cities from the Umbrians (Trecenta eorum oppida Tusci

debellasse

> reperiuntur.). This clearly refers to the `Landnahme'. This
> statement is confirmed by the river Umbro (mod. Ombrone), which
> flows in its full length in Etruscan territory. The river will have
> given its name to the people, or vice versa. Anyhow, the river will
> have flowed in Umbrian territory; so the Etruscans must have pushed
> the Umbrians out.
> "
>
> which of course not a derivation, but it does make it likely that
> the sequence was Umbrian -> Etruscan -> Latin
>
>
> Torsten
>

Ok, with Pliny.

But, based on what, Torsten, you deduce Umbrian -> Etruscan -> Latin
for Rome etymology?

In other words, based on what you suspect that Rome was initially an
Umbrian city?

The Latium toponyms are (in their great majority) Latins.

So sorry, but I 'cannot see' what is your argumentation here:
If 'some A are B' and 'some B are C' you try to come as a definitive
conclusion that 'some A are C'? :)

Marius