Re: Res: [tied] Etymology of Rome

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:25:41 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<gpiotr@...> wrote:

>On 2007-03-08 19:45, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
>> You're absolutely right. There is no Skt. ra:man.
>> The Skt. form is an o-stem (or o/a:-adjective), from
>> *h1rom-o-, giving ra:ma-, as expected.
>>
>> There is an Avestan ra:man-, from another root (*h1reH-men-,
>> Pokorny er(@)-). The form is incorrectly cited by Pokorny
>> under *rem(@)- (= *h1rem-), cf. Lubotsky's "Indo-Aryan
>> inherited lexicon". It's possible (especially if *h1reH- is
>> *hreh2-), that the two roots are ultinately related, like
>> *gWeh2- and *gWem-.
>
>Possibly connected with Gk. ere:mos 'lonely, desolate' (with old /e:/,
>thus apparently *h1réh1-mo- with *h1 rather than *h2)

It's just that Pokorny suggests (as a "höchstens ganz
schwache Möglichkeit") a link with Greek éra-mai, éro:s
"love" (*h1erh2-)...

>, cf. IIr. *HrH-mó-
>'still, motionless', and Lat. ra:rus < *h1r.H-ró-. How, then, about
>deriving <Ro:ma> from *(h1)roH-máh2 'seclusion' (or 'resting-place', or
>the like), the O-fix derivative of *h1réH-mn.?

Possible, but it's always going to be hard to prove what the
"real" etymology of Rome is.

>This, by the way, would make OInd. ra:ma- ambiguous: *(h1)rom-o- or
>*(h1)roH-mo- (if not a merger of both).

Indeed.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...