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

Piotr Gasiorowski schrieb:

>
>
> On 2007-03-10 19:16, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Piotr, could you find counter-examples in Latin similar
> > with /h1rom.hu.los/ (accented on u) but with no lengthening?
>
> Such a formation doesn't exist in the first place, Words in -ul- are
> generally diminutives (like <rotula> 'little wheel' from <rota>). The
> old shape of the suffix was *-elo- (see cognates in other languages); *l
> in this position gave Latin dark /l/ ("L pinguis"), which coloured the
> preceding *e to /u/ after a consonant and to /o/ after a vowel (e.g.
> <filiolus>). I don't think Ro:ma was named after Ro:mulus. More likely,
> the name of the eponymous founder was invented a posteriori and formed
> from the name of the city -- a rather common "explanation" of place-names.
>
> Piotr

ah!!! the old shape was "-elo-" and it was a diminutive!! It
rememembers me about the funny argumentatiosn about Romanians
diminutives in "-el" and the whole Latin exculubrations to explain
words like "cãtsel", "vitsel" and co. I guess there is no need to
remember all about, is there ?

Alex