Re: fortis , f- >>

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>

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

> >
> > Sihler mentioned ro:bus : ru:fus, *londH- > lumbi: = loins (and some related words). He compared it to opt. OE borrowings of v (vannus > fann, v- > berbena, etc.). Either shows the reality of what I proposed.
> >

> While <ru:fus> is obviously borrowed from P-Italic (not only into Latin but into Etruscan, where we find Raufe, Rufe, Rafe as regional variants of the cognomen Ru:fus), <ro:bus> and <ro:bi:go:> are not. The -b- cannot come from any known P-Italic language,

That's why Sihler said that O-U (or P-Italic from kW>p) had bh > f but THEN f > v between V THEN v borrowed as b OR f in Latin. Besides the ev. of borrowing I gave, there's also:

Safinim O; >> Samnium L;

O-U >> Sabi:ni: = (U-speakers), Sabelli: = (Samni:te:s [usually] / Sabi:ni:), Samni:te:s (p) = (O-speakers) L;

O-U >> Saunî:tai \ Sauní:tides (p) G;

which make it very likely that L borrowed all the above with b for v (still written f since there was no distinction W/IN O-U yet), especially if < *swebh- since L had swe- > so- not sa- (making it impossible for the L words to be inh. < Proto-Italic). The G have au (aw for av).


The ev. for Safinim : Samnium , etc., shows that *-inos > -nus in L, making the reg. dim. in -illus explainable as a retention, not the outcome of the never-existing *-nelos, instead all < *-in()los .

>

and we must be dealing with a Q-Italic dialect closer to Latin than to Faliscan (which has <efiles> 'aediles' and the like). The problem with Bhr.'s designation of "Latial" or non-Roman Latin is that <Ro:ma> itself probably comes from this dialect. It evidently lowered *u: (or the diphthong predating it) to *o: before labials. The city was founded at the major ford of the Tiber, and fords occur where rivers are broad, so we can understand *Ru:ma 'Broad Space' formed like <spu:ma> with the root of <ru:s>.


It's just as likely < *srouma = river . Since some form of IE was probably spoken before the Italic IE came, there's no ev. it was ever an Italic word. Whatever the origin, it's uncertain, making its use as ev. of ou>o: in any Italic foggy.

>

Likewise <abdo:men> (var. <abdu:men> cited by Charisius), formed like <nu:men>, <lu:men>, from *deu- 'to place':


It's more likely < abdo: , as in concealment > covering/womb/belly (compare the variety of meaning of words formed from other roots for 'hide, cover, etc.'). The -u:- could be nothing more than from opt. o: > u: / _m (as in hu:ma:nus < *hu:m < *gHdHo:m = earth); it's also uncertain.

>

reg. Roman Latin <abdu:men> 'a putting away, place to put away' (i.e. food; cf. Johnny Depp's remark that ultra-skinny girlfriend Kate Moss did eat, and in fact "could really put it away"). Provisionally, perhaps we could label this dialect "Tiberian".

>

There's not enough ev. there was ever a L-F dia. in Rome before Latin came.