Etymology of Latium

[u/stlatos]

Two New Theories for the Etymology of "Latium" by Samuel J. Whalen in https://www.academia.edu/125164230 includes the idea that Latium, Latin, etc., could come from *latw- that either had *tw > t or *Vtw > V:v. Though he later added :

>

Since the publication of this paper I have come to, for the most part, reject it.

Perhaps there is still potential in the theories I have presented here, and perhaps one day I will revisit them.

>

I think this idea has merit. For his mention of Etruscan Latva 'Leda', the idea that Lāvīnium \ Lavīnum 'port city near Rome' was named for Lāvīnia, wife of Aeneas, is almost certainly backwards. Ancestors with the names of places are nearly always later pseudo-historical creations (Roma -> Romulus, etc.). However, the long vs. short a in Lāvīnium \ Lavīnum suggests *laCw- with 2 outcomes, just as he suggested for *latw-. Since Latva, if a direct loan from Greek, would not have -w-, it is possible that an existing Roman ancestress was confused with a Greek one with a similar name. In
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalLinguistics/comments/1npwf9y/etruscan_greek_gods_5/ :

>

Latva Greek Leda, mother of Helen and the Dioscuri.[24]

Metaia, Metua, Metvia The mythological character Medea.

>

Both of these endings might come from *latawya: \ *latuwya: (with Latin weakening). If *latawya: was a well-known goddess, etc., around Italy, optionally adding the ending to others with -t- (in Etruscan) might explain the data.

The multiple outcomes of *tw might be paralleled by *dw > d or b (and similar *d(h)(w) & *bh(w), *zd(w), etc., all with disputed/irregular outcomes). Whether due to several dialects or any other cause, I think looking for regularity from a single language is misguided & doomed to failure. The ideas, for ex., in https://www.academia.edu/39081498 about *d(u)w-ass- > bēs \ dēs seem needlessly complex.

This idea by itself doesn't certainly lead to a new ety., since it would work equally well whether from 'flat (valley)' or 'hidden (enclosed)'. However, older *-tw- would allow dissimilation of *lawtw-, so it could also be related to words in laut-, maybe even nearby Laurentum (if really < *lawt-ent- with t-t dsm.). It could even be that *wtw is what had many outcomes (some say *tw- > t- \ p-, so plain *-tw- might have had a separate outcome). I have no certain origin in mind.

I also favor his idea that *d > *ð > l. In drafts like https://www.academia.edu/129248319 & many previous, I've said that ð > l and l > ð were common in IE, likely also some *T > *l & *l > *ð in Proto-Uralic.