Re: Res: [tied] Etymology of Rome - h1romh-eh2 again

alexandru_mg3 napisał(a):

> 1. Miguel rejected 'my etymology' based on the assertion that 'the
> compensatory lengthening via resyllabification is IMPOSSIBLE
>
> 2. Now showing that 'the compensatory lengthening via
> resyllabification is POSSIBLE', I rejected 'his rejection'...
>
> 3. and I still sustain my etymology as : 'A POSSIBLE ONE'

A CHANGE of that kind is generally possible (e.g. OE seolh 'seal', pl.
se:olas < *selhas-). But the etymology won't work in Latin, since it
would require an otherwise unattested lengthening in *CVRHV- words.
Counterexamples rule it out.

> 1. I'm aware that the compensatory lengthening by resyllabification,
> didn't happen in all the contexts: but it happened in some particular
> ones...(and seems to be a rare case...),

In other words, it's completely ad hoc.

> and I'm not able to identify
> yet any rule...

But there are words with the very same structure as your putative
*h1romh1-áh2, both in Greek and in Latin, e.g. Lat. mola < *molh2-ah2.

> 2. BUT I also think that Ro:mulus is the o-ablaut of Remus
>
> *h1romh-u-lo-s
> *h1remh-u-s
> (the division above are not by syllables, I isolated the root, etc...)
>
> But I couldn't find yet an explanation: why the lenghthening could
> happen in the first case and not in the second one.
>
> Of course, you can say that the supposition that 'Remus&Romulus are
> from the same root' is completely false, but not to can link Romulus
> with Remus to the same root viewing the e/o ablaut inside: would be
> strange for me....

Ro:mulus is rather clearly *ro:m-e-lo-, an *-elo- derivative of Ro:ma
(whatever the latter's etymology). Remus could reflect *jemos 'twin',
made to alliterate with his brother's name, but in fact it's hard to be
sure of anything in such matters.

Piotr