Re: Latin urbs

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> OCR is a good thing
>

Provided the intellectual value of the text is also good.

> 'On the Etymology of Lat. urbs
> C. Michiel Driessen University of Leiden
>

This guy began working on a Latin dictionary within Lubotsky's IE Etymological project, but after he left the work unfinished De Vaan took it over, leading to the infamous "Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages" (EDLOIL).

> Introduction
> Lat. urbs 'city' (CIL I2 5, Naevius+) has no commonly acknowledged
> etymology. Its etymology is a classic crux within Indo-European
> linguistics. The DELL 754 even went so far as to suggest that it is
> probably not Indo-European at all: "Sans doute empruntée. II n'y a pas
> en indoeuropéen un nom de la <<ville>>. Le groupe de grec. pólis etc.
> signifiait <<citadelle>>." Here I have to disagree. True,
> Indo-European had no term for 'city', but the Latin meaning need not
> be original; it may well be secondary as is the case with all
> Indo-European terms for 'city'. These usually go back to an original
> meaning 'place' (like OHG stat), 'enclosure' (like OCS gradU) or
> 'fortress' (like Gr. pólis).
>
> In this contribution it will be demonstrated that urbs can be properly
> etymologised, that it is inherited and that its meaning may well be
> secondary.1 First, the semantics of urbs will be discussed. Then, the
> phonology of existing etymologies will be treated. Finally, a new
> etymology will be presented.
>

We'd better dispense ourselves from the rest.

Mallory & Adams (2006) propose a root *worP- 'enclosure' found in Hittite and Tocharian, apparently and extension of *wer- 'to cover, to enclose'.