From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 47800
Date: 2007-03-11
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer VidalOf course. But it could just as well point to Lat. Ro:ma >
><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?