Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>:
>>K virtually disappeared. It was retain as an abbreviation for the proper
>>name Casca, and also, where context made clear, for Carthage, Calends,
>>calumny (calumnia) and 'caput' (head).
> Reminds me: was _Carthago_ pronounced as _Cart-hago_, reflecting more closely
> Phoenician/Punic _Qart-H.adasht_, or _Car-thago_ as if from Greek? 

Interesting question. As you obviously know it was not from the Greek 
name for the city which was _Karkhe:do:n_ (or, presumably, in Doric 
Greek _Karkha:do:n_).

The Latin form is certainly closer to the Punic name. Presumably the 
Romans would have picked up the name of the city from peoples of Sicily, 
both Greek & Carthaginian - indeed, it was the struggles between these 
two colonial powers (never mind the native Sicels, Sicanian & Elymians) 
that got the Romans first involved with the Carthaginians.

While Latin Cart- would be fair Latinization of Punic _Qart_ (city), 
-ha:go: (genitive: -ha:ginis) is too far removed from _H.adasht_ (new) 
for the Latin to be directly derived from the Punic. The Latin name 
looks almost as tho it is a 'portmanteau formation': a Latinized blend 
of Doric Greek & Punic. In which case I think _Car-tha-go_ is likely to 
have been the normal syllabification from the start.

As hostilities grew bitter between the two nations, then it is very 
unlikely IMO that any attempt would have been made to reflect a Punic 
pronunciation & by the high Classical period, Punic had probably ceased 
to be spoken.

> Greek loans
> must have accounted for by far the most instances of |th| in Classical Latin.

Yes, indeed.

[log in to unmask]
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.