Re: The palatal sham :) (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian (1))

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 30939
Date: 2004-02-10

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:28:55 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>

>--- In, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:33:09 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
>> wrote:
>> >The reason I asked is I'm reading a collection of papers by
>> >Vennemann, as I announced ;-), and in one he refers to a dialect
>> >Basque which has preposed the usual definite Basque 'article' -a,
>> >thus <a (noun)-a>.
>> Not quite. Bizkaian has a pleonastic construction of the
>> pronoun: au gizon au "this man this" (= Sp. este hombre), ori gizon
>> "that man that" (= Sp. ese hombre), a gizon a ("that man that") (=
>> aquel hombre). The definite article (-a < *har) is only suffixed,
>> everywhere in Basque.
>So <a> 'that' does not have the same origin as the definite article
><-a> ?

I didn't say that.

Except in Bizk., the demonstrative with 3-deixis has been replaced by the
form (h)ura (*haur-hár), but the oblique is still har-.

Basque also has a definite article -o, derived from the 1-deixis
demonstrative (h)au(r). It's apparently only used in the plural, in
phrases such as <euskaldunok> "we, the Basques". The 2-deixis
demonstrative (h)ori (*haur-í) is probably of no great antiquity.

The Pyrenean dialects have demonstratives kaur, kori and kura (gaur, gori,
gura), which indicates that the initial consonant was originally *k-

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal