Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T03:46:16.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Literature and General

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Summaries of Periodicals
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 1917 , pp. 107 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1917

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 108 note 1 Discussed by ProfessorConway, R. S. in the Classical Review XX. (1906), p. 411CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 108 note 2 Professor Conway writes on this subject: ‘I cannot see that Herbig has added anything to justify Schulze's assumption (discussed as stated in the previous note). If Herbig's view of the origin of rūma is correct, the vowel of the personal name was originally ū (or eu), not ō, so that Schulze's derivation of Rōma from this personal name loses all probability. In Etruscan (but not in Latin) the two words would both become rūma, or at least be so written: and if the theory be that, though written alike, they were sounded differently, that is only an admission that even in Etruscan they were not identical.’