--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<miguelc@...> wrote:
> After reading Pittau's article, I'm still left with the
> question: If we have <Rumina> and the <ficus ruminalis>,
> perché si è avuto Ro:ma e non *Ruma [= why did one get Ro:ma and
> not *Ruma]?
At least one onomastic correspondence between Etruscan and archaic
Latin based, as it seems very likely, on the hypothesized parallel
correspondence between the reconstructed Etr. etymon *ruma and the
attested Lat. etymon ruma is available (see my post archived at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/47788 ):
that between the Etr. gentilic name *Rume-le-na (attested as RUMELNA
in a 6th century BC funerary inscription from Orvieto -- the actual
inscription reads [MI VELTHU]RUS RUMELNAS 'I (am the tomb of)
Velthur Rumelna') and the Lat. gentilic name Ro:mulius/Ro:milius
(with closed, i.e. long, /o/).
Couldn't the phonetic correspondence between Etr. /u/ and Lat. /o:/
seen in this onomastic equivalence point to Lat. Ro:ma < Etr. *Ruma
too?
Regards,
Francesco