RE: RE: Re: Is Basque IE?
Dear group members,
let me try and summarize what's been going on with this topic so far. Since I posted my first message over two weeks ago, I received few replies. The most frequent ones are fairly weak criticisms, by D. G. Kilday, mostly based on:
- a rejection of key parts of Michelena's and Trask's commonly accepted internal reconstruction of Pre-Basque (it would be interesting to be pointed to some published material where such rejection is supported by some systematic evidence);
- an analysis of a very small percentage of my etymologies, which are either refuted on various grounds (incl. the critic's unorthodox reconstruction of Pre-Basque), or dismissed as "loans" when the similarity with other IE terms is too evident to be otherwise dismissed.
Comments by other fellow linguists would be very welcome.
--- In email@example.com, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:[DGK]
5. Bq. _ar_ 'male'; PIE *h2/4né:r 'man, hero'. If _ar_ indeed reflected *anar as you claim, the northern form would be *ahar, and in fact under #166 you refer northern _zahar_ 'old' (southern _zar_) to *zanar. But then you say *-ar in *zanar may be identical to _ar_ 'man, male', whose protoform you insist is *anar, so the REAL protoform of _zahar_ must be *zananar.>
Actually, Basque zahar 'old' does NOT have a medial nasal nor it contains ar 'male', whose Iberian counterparts are respectively sakar, tar. The protoform *anar actually corresponds to Basque ar, a~ar 'worm'.
That means BOTH Gianfranco's #5 and #166 are unjustifiable on the Basque side.
Gianfranco already knows my opinion about his theory. :-)
Please notice /r/ is these words is a trill rhotic, which is a different phoneme than the tap rhotic /R/ in e.g. bero /beRo/.
In my personal notes I follow Alessio and a few others in writing such words with -r' when they show the trill with vocalic suffixes, like _arra_ 'the male'. The handbooks cite only pronouns, some recently borrowed nouns, and the native nouns _hor_ 'dog', _ur_ 'water', and _zur_ 'wood' as Basque words ending in weak -r (i.e. an underlying tap rhotic).
In the past, this convention was in use among Basque writers but it was abolished by the Basque Academy (Euskaltzaindia).
and it's still employed in Iberian transcriptions, but I think it's preferrable the other way around, because (apart from loanwords) the tap is *secondary* in Basque, the trill being the genuine rhotic as in Iberian.
However, there're some reare cases of Basque /r/ arising from gemination of /R/, as in larre 'meadow; heath; uncultivated land, desert', a loanword from Celtic (Gaulish) *landa: 'heath, moor' > *lanna > larra > larre.
>That is, the shift /nn/ > /RR/ happened in Paleo-Basque.
But _landa_ 'campo, pieza de terreno' occurs widely in Basque (Bisc., Guip., Aezc., Lab., High & Low Nav., Ronc.) and appears to continue Gaul. *landa: directly.
>I think this is from a different Celtic word *landa: '(enclosed) field, plot of land', homonymous to Gaulish *landa: 'heath', Cornish lan, Breton lann 'heath, steppe', which would require a Celtic protoform *Flanda: (cfr. Gascon branda, brana 'heath'). Unfortunately, Celtic specialists conflated both.
> Moreover a Late Gaul. *lanna would have given Bq. *lana, since Latin _anno:na_ gives Bq. _anoa_.Actually, nn > n isn't a Paleo-Basque but a Vasco-Romance development shared by Gascon, where we find lana.