From: stlatos
Message: 70582
Date: 2012-12-12
>But the opp. is seen in octo:br- > octubre Sp. There's also no:dus > nudo , which makes it unlikely that o:P is the start (or only thing that changed). I don't know why o: / u: alt. would be more regular than o / u or e / i in other words.
> >
> On second thought, if <Ro:ma> is derived from *reuH- 'to spread out, make room' (as in Lat. <ru:s> 'countryside' from *rewHos 'expanse, spread', Gmc. *ru:maz 'space, room' from *ruH-mo- 'extended, spread out, etc.), it is better to explain the morphology without going outside standard Latin.
>
> A plausible parallel is Lat. <po:mum> 'fruit', for which Umb. <Puemune> dat. sg. 'to Pomonus' requires an Italic stem *powemo- 'fruitful'. This can be taken as containing the /o/-grade of the root *peu- 'to propagate one's kind, procreate' whose zero-grade implemental noun *putlo- 'implement of procreation, offspring, son' is reflected as Skt. <putra->, Osc. acc. sg. <puklum>.
>
> Formed like *powemo-, Itc. *row(H)emo- 'expansive, broad' would apply to the wide part of a river where fording is feasible, and <Ro:ma> would simply be the fem. sg. of this adjective.
>
> Beside <ro:bus> and <abdo:men>, other examples of prelabial -o:- for std. Lat. -u:- are <bo:bus> for <bu:bus> dat./abl. pl. 'to/with cattle' (from *bovibus; the noun has b- from *gW- and is an early borrowing from P-Itc.),
><o:pilio:> for <u:pilio:> 'shepherd' (*ovi-), <po:milio:> 'dwarf' (cited by Donatus) for <pu:milio:>, and <to:fus> 'tufa' for *tu:fus, *tu:fa required by Romance forms (with intervocalic -f-, this cannot be a native inheritance). This assortment, including borrowings also found in std. Latin, indicates that the speech with -o:- should not be considered a separate language as I suggested yesterday, but a mere dialect of Latin. It is unlikely to have had its own army and navy.
>Except for the part about its etym. being completely unknown.
> Since <Ro:ma> is explicable through std. Latin,
>
> DGK
>