Re: [tied] -lh-

From: tgpedersen@...
Message: 8887
Date: 2001-08-31

--- In cybalist@..., "Che DeBarna" <almogaver69@...> wrote:
> I was sure it had to happen somewhere in Brazil! Thanks for the

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 "GarcĂ­a", 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.