From: João S. Lopes Filho
Message: 9525
Date: 2001-09-15
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Anouilh
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 00:54:42 +0200, "Che" <almogaver69@...>
> wrote:
>
> >Característiques del gascó: trets evolutius
> >
> > 1.. Pas de F llatina a H, en alguns llocs aspirada:
> > FERRUM> hèr
>
> This is also found in Castilian and has traditionally been taken as
> evidence of Basque substrate in both Gascon and Castilian. The
> Vasconist R.L [Larry] Trask has recently argued forcefully against
> this, at least where it concerns Castilian (see: "The History of
> Basque pp. 424-429). He gives 7 arguments against the Basque
> substrate theory:
>
> 1. Basque was never spoken in significant numbers in the territories
> where Castilian first evolved (Burgos/Santander area)
> 2. Latin /f/ remained in Castilian before /ue/ [e.g. fuerte] and /r/
> [e.g. frente], which is inconsistent with a scenario where
> pre-Castilians were unable to pronounce /f/.
> 3. The substrate theory would require the change /f/ > /h/ to have
> occurred at the very birth of Castilian, but the evidence from
> consecutive layers of (Visi-)Gothic, Arabic and Old French loanwords
> in Castilian proves that the change occurred after the Gothic period
> and during the period where Arabic words came into the language (8th.
> century).
> 4. Basque itself does not know the development /f/ > /h/. Latin /f/
> is borrowed in Basque as /b/.
> 5. The change /f/ > /h/ also occurs in parts of Sardinia, Calabria, in
> northern Italy and in Arumanian, where Basque substrate influence
> cannot be invoked.
> 6. The change /f/ > /h/ is entirely absent in the area where Basque
> substrate is demonstrably present, i.e. in Navarrese Romance.
> 7. None of the other typical Castilian developments have parallels in
> Basque either.
>
> Some of these points are hard to argue with. My own position is that
> Castilian arose in an area where Romanization had indeed been less
> strong than in other areas of the Iberian peninsula. It arose on a
> linguistic substrate that was *not* Basque, but rather Cantabrian. We
> don't know what kind of language the Cantabrians spoke, but there are
> reasons to believe that it was an Indo-European language (presumable
> pre- or para-Celtic), heavily influenced by an earlier "Vasconic"
> substrate. Cantabrian, together with e.g. Iberian and Basque,
> probably belonged to a kind of Iberian "Sprachbund", where several
> unrelated languages had acquired similar phonetic and phonotactic
> characteristics. The bottom line is that Cantabrian probably had no
> /f/ either, and may have had /h/. We can imagine that the treatment
> of Latin /f/ was influenced by the degree of Romanization: it was
> pronounced /f/ in areas of strong and prolongued Romanization, /b/ in
> areas of weak and ephemerous Romanization, such as the Basque Country.
> In between, there may have been areas of medium-strong Romanization,
> where the /f/ became /h/ or /P/ (bilabial fricative). This would
> explain the /h/ in Gascon, and the /h/ in some districts along the
> Basque/Castilian linguistic border. From there, the /h/ would have
> spread secondarily into mainstream Castilian around the 8th. century.
>
> > 2.. Caiguda de N intervocàlica: FARINA> haria
>
> As in Basque.
>
> > 3.. Pas de L final de síl·laba a U semivocal: SAL> sau
>
> Not in Basque.
>
> > 4.. Evolució de LL llatina interior o final a TH:
> > VITELLU> vedèth
>
> Not in Basque.
>
> > 5.. LL intervocàlica passa a R: BELLA> bèra
>
> In Basque /ll/ > /l/ (while /l/ > /r/).
>
> > 6.. Aparició de A- protètica davant de R inicial, doblant-se així la R:
ROTA> arròda
>
> As in Basque.
>
> > 7.. Metàtesi de -R: VENTRUM> vrente
>
> Not specifically Basque.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>