Garcia, patronymics, and bizkaian conditioning of southern spanish

I know García (Gartzia) was originally a patronimic. So? The point is that this name is Bizkaian. All spanish Garcías come ultimately from Bizkaia, even those whose surname is though to be "original" andalusian or generally "southern", which has become the more widespread surname in Spain. What I was trying to show is that bizkaian emmigrants to souther peninsula achieved great success in both economical and "familiar" (spreading) senses, so they became significant enough to conditionate southern castillian dialectes and thus the american ones as well.

----- Original Message -----

From: João S. Lopes Filho

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 3:51 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] -lh- / Garcia and patronymics

About GARCIA family: Garcia was originally a first name, not surname. So, there's a lot of independent Garcia families, because the name Garcia was used as a patronymic - so, Juan Garcia was the Juan Garcia's son. The same is valid for Gomes/Gomez and Osorio. After XVI century the patronymics became gradually surnames. You have analogous examples of patronymics becoming surnames in almost all European languages. See yours - "Pedersen" = Peter's son And mine "Simoes Lopes" = Simon's son, Lopo's son Joao Simoes Lopes Rio,Brazil ----- Original Message ----- From: <tgpedersen@...> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [tied] -lh- > --- In cybalist@..., "Che DeBarna" <almogaver69@...> wrote: > > I was sure it had to happen somewhere in Brazil! Thanks for the > info. > > Then... mmm... I've got my own theory about Latin American Spanish, > which I believe to reflect a different thing that an "andalusian" > dialect. How much has Andalusia been Castillian before the (re) > discovery of America? Is this period long enough for "andalusian" to > become so different to "regular" Castillian? I don't think so... I'd > rather think seriously about basque influence (no, it's not that I'm > obsessed about basque, it's just that in my opinion it has always > been unfairly ignored). Just notice that the most of > the "conquistadores" where either directly basque-born or sons of > those basques (more specifically: bizkaians) who migrated towards the > south (that includes Extremadura) searching for a job in what was > their specialty: the sea. Standing there as an evidence is the fact > that the most common family name in the whole Spain is "García", but > not the original Bizkaian one, but the southern! In my opinion, > basque sailors and "conquistadores" are responsible for the special > american "s", identical to basque "z" and of the famous > american "voseo", it is, the substitution of the second person > singular pronoun "tu" by "vos", which is gramatically equivalent to > the 2nd plural "vosotros" (like English thou>you). It is something > that happened by the same time in basque "hi" ("thou") is replaced > by "zu" ("you"). The difference with English is that this kept "you" > for both sing. and plural, while basque created a regular plural > for "zu">"zuek" and american spanish used its original "vosotros". > > Dutch has, as far as I can see, calqued Spanish: 2nd pl. <je> "ye" > > 2nd sg; new 2nd pl. <je lie> ("you folks")> <jullie>; even <Uwe > genade> "your Grace" > <U> cf. Spanish <vuestra merced> > <Usted>. > You might argue that English has the same construction <you guys> for > 2nd pl. > At least that puts it in the same time frame. > > Torsten > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.