From: dgkilday57
Message: 70282
Date: 2012-10-26
>I rejected that etymology before, and believers in "expressive palatalization" need to explain why a mushroom would produce such a demand for expressivity in speakers that only palatalization could satisfy it. Are we talking about a MAGIC mushroom?
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > If Bq. oilo 'chicken' comes from *boilo < pollo with "regular loss
> > of /b/ before /o/"
> >
> > > I suppose in that context the labial stop was lenied to a voiceless
> > > fricative /F/ (IPA "phi"), which later disappeared. It also occurs
> > > before /u/ in words such as furca > urka, fulano > ulain (actually,
> > > this is the situation in Iberian). Compare the Asturian anthroponym
> > > Ordoño and the Spanish surname Ortuño < Fortu:nius. As a
> matter
> > > of fact, labiodental /f/ is realized as [F] in many parts of
> Northern
> > > Spain, something which would explain its (conditioned) aspiration
> as
> > > /h/ in Gascon and in most varieties of Spanish (but lost in the std
> > > variety).
> >
> > But all your examples involve Latin/Romance f-, not p-, so this single
> word <oilo> requires an ad-hoc assumption. That is why I prefer to see
> a borrowing from the Gaulish equivalent of <pullus>.
> >
> This is very unlikely. Spanish pollo gives Basque oilo just as Romance
> fongo gives onddo (with expressive palatalization).
> > (presumably used to explain on 'good' from Romance bono),When ONE GUY invokes an array of optional Aquitanian soundlaws that would make Sean Whalen blush, forgive me for not jumping aboard the bandwagon. Schuchardt was polemically opposed to the Neogrammarian school and yet he came NOWHERE NEAR Gorrotxategi in allowing such arbitrary variations in interpreting onomastics.
> >
> > > Most Vascologists agree in considering Basque on a native word, as
> it's
> > > attested in Aquitanian inscriptions as BON-, HON-, -PON.
> >
> > I see no reason to equate these onomastic elements with each other, or
> with Bq. <on>.
> >
> See Gorrotxategi (1984), "Estudio sobre la onomástica indígena de
> Aquitania".
> > why is there Bq. borondate from Lat. (acc.) volunta:tem?Mariner dates the beginning of Christianization to the 3rd-5th cc., with <aingeru> from <angelus> reflecting the onset of palatalization of /g/. Solar disks on tombstones and pagan characterization in the Chanson de Roland tell us nothing about the date of the FIRST churches in the Basque Country.
> >
> > > Because this word was borrowed from a non-Basque Pyrenaic language
> > > which kept the labial stop, as in pullus > pullo (L, LN, Z), pollo
> (Z),
> > > pollu (Z) 'donkey', also with variants where Latin -ll- is rendered
> > > into a palatal stop /c/ <tt>: potto (Bazt), pottoko (Bazt) 'colt,
> young
> > > horse', pottoka (L, LN) 'mare'.
> > >
> > > This submerged Pyrenaic language, whose remains can be found in the
> > > Aragonese and Bearnese Romances, as well as in Basque itself, has
> been
> > > studied by linguists such as Elcock and García de Diego.
> >
> > Obviously I have nothing against "submerged languages" (i.e.
> substrates), but <borondate> is not some oddity in Basque. Its
> importance in ordinary speech suggests that it was adapted directly from
> Latin by bilingual speakers.
> >
> This is actually Church Latin from the late (8th century or later)
> Christianization of Basques. The suffix -(i)tate can also be found with
> a "indigenous" root in the dialectal form pegorritate (LN) 'extreme
> misery', from pegor (LN) 'sterile, poor'.
> > I prefer to consider on 'good' ancient,Mute plus liquid is different. Basque has this too, <gurutze> 'cross', <giristiano> 'Christian', etc.
> >
> > > See above.
> >
> > and gizon 'man' (against giza-), which occurs in Aquitanian
> > onomastics, to be originally 'good man, bonhomme'.
> >
> > > IMHO Basque gizon is a loanword from Celtic *gdonjo- 'man', most
> likely from Gaulish.
> >
> > I would expect an initial affricate or sibilant in Basque, not
> anaptyxis,
> >
> Why so? Even Iberian adapted the Latin ahtroponym Flaccus as /bilake/.
> > and such borrowing still fails to explain the combining form <giza->,The form is explained by MY theory, and as explained, the distinction in connotation has been levelled out.
> which I regard as the original unmarked 'man', not 'good man', though
> semantic devaluation has erased this distinction, as with <gentleman>,
> <caballero>, etc.
> >
> Although ther form giza- remains unexplained, there's no such
> connotation in the Basque word.
> > Two lenes produced a fortis (as in apais < abbas, zapatu < sabbatum)Martinet said that ancient Basque opposed initial [pH] to [b], and since Latin [p] was unaspirated, it was heard as [b] in <bake> 'peace' and other words. This does not go far enough. I think ancient Basque opposed [PP] to [P] (i.e. fortis/geminate against lenis/simplex), so that Lat. [bb] was heard as [PP], reflected in modern Basque as [p]. This distinction applied to other consonants, so Lat. <anno:na> yields Bq. <anoa> 'provisions', and <castellum> yields <gaztelu>, not *-eru.
> which is hard to reconcile with any theoretical view failing to regard
> consonant strength as the primary feature.
> >
> Please explain.