Re: fortis , f- >>

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > > One question: is the Tiber fordable in Rome? Otherwise, I'd prefer
> the
> > > classsical etymology from Oscan *sru:ma 'river', through an Etruscan
> > > intermediate.
> >
> > First, since Oscan had *-fr- from medial *-sr- (Neap. <Ottufre>
> 'October'), it probably had initial *fr- from *sr- as well, like Latin
> <fri:gus> 'coldness',
> >
> That's right. This would mean *sru:ma is either from a different
> language, possibly Italoid (i.e. your Illyro-Lusitanian), or from early
> Sabellian before the change sr- > fr-.
>
> > and Etruscan allows fr-.
> >
> In the hapax frontac, whose /o/ is clearly non-Etruscan.

I was thinking of <frast> from the oil-lamp. The word transcribed <frontac> is North Picene, as pointed out by Alessio, who recognized that the text of Pesaro is trilingual, not bilingual. But he failed to consider all the evidence, including the North Picene stele of Novilara (found 7 km from the Pesaro text); when this is done, it indicates that our word should be read as <brontag>. Since the context shows that the word refers to the N. Pic. office which combines haruspex and fulguriator, I believe we can analyze it more or less as 'portent-driver', the first element cognate with <frontesia> 'portents', the second with <agere>; probably the nom. sg. *-s fell off in N. Pic. compound root-nouns of this type.

> > But even if Oscan retained *sr-, Etruscan allows that as well, with
> <sren> 'image' vel sim., <srenchva> 'set of images' vel sim.
> >
> That's also right, although in the case of Etruscan, this and other
> groups arose from vocal syncope. My guess is that Latin Ro:ma is a
> borrowing from *Ru:ma in an o-less language like Etruscan (although
> Italoid had no /o/, according to Villar).

What evidence do you have for vocal syncope in such words? And what other examples do you have of native Etruscan -u:- being borrowed into Latin as -o:-? (Some scholars have denied that Etruscan had long vowels, but I consider them incorrect.)

> > Finally, Rome is not a river,
> >
> But it's on a river whose name is from Etruscan, BTW.

I agree that Tiberis is from archaic Etruscan *Thi-hwar- 'Water-Bearer' vel sim. (i.e. generic 'River', like Welsh Aber-).

> > but a city at a ford on a river.
> >
> Unfortunately, your etymology doesn't point to 'ford' bur rather to
> 'plain' or 'countryside'. IMHO, a native Latin etymology of Rome is
> extremely unlikely.
>

What is extremely unlikely is that scholars will ever agree on the etymology.

DGK