Re: [tied] p>f>h Celtic, Castillian , Basque, etc

From: Che
Message: 9548
Date: 2001-09-17

And what about alferra/alperra naparra/nafarra, etc in eastern dialects (navarrese)? What is the original form, the f or the p form?
I disagree basque and aquitanian are related to iberian and sardinian aboriginal. The two first are quite likely to be as close as a mother tongue to its descendant, like latin and romance, while the two second seem to be related each to the other, but evidences are more difficult to be found.
I think basque speakers have been historically very prone to external linguistic influence. Celtic, iberian, latin, etc have modified phonetics and lexicon very much each of them, and the key point is that being basque an ergative language, grammar and structure could be kept out of influence. But, as I said, you can find many different influences along time and space from many different languages both in phonetics and lexicon. So maybe when romans arrived to Aquitania, the "fashion" was celtic and thus no f is found - or whatever it is - ... but later, the fashion is latin and f replaces p, or something, you get what I mean?
About the main issue, in my opinion, both spanish and gascon occitan share a basque substratum.
Gascon occitan can't have any other substratum that basque/aquitanian (rather basque than aquitanian). I mean its proven there were basques in that territory, and never forget that gascon is found in Aran Valley (BTW, aran means "valley" in basque), in the Catalan Pyrenees, where a basque speaking population lasted until s XIV-XV centuries.
And about spanish, I know about that mysterious cantabrian celtoid language, and just for that we must be aware that, first, in Cantabria they have a different romance language, or at least, a very different dialect of regular historical spanish, and up there in Cantabria, this "cantabru" speech is opposed to "castellanu". How can be the original castilian so different to what we have always read as castilian? It leads to think that in fact cantabric is a different, unsuccesful, romance language, like many others in Iberia, and that Spanish was born more east, in la Rioja or in Bizkaia, both originally basque speaking regions (Bizkaia still is, of course). Regular castilian fits with what we "traditionally read as" spanish, and not with cantabrian.
P.S.: And the japanese affair is a bit complex. Ni+hon (Nihon) results nippon, while, for instance, getsu-you+hi results getsuyoubi, etc. Howhever, you're right about this comparison as it shows that this alternance h (P) / p / b is quite usual.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Sánchez
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] p>f>h Celtic, Castillian , Basque, etc

In Basque we dont have p- (except in loans). In fact we have pair like:
ahotz / abotz 'voice' that suggest the existence of *apots / abotz (in
some aspects Basque seems to have been indifferent to voice contrasts,
like Iberian).
Also in Japanese we have *p > h/_{a, e, o}: *Nipon > Nihon 'Japan'.
Basque, Iberian, Aquitanian may be related languages, also may be
a Nuragian (Ancient Sardinian). The languages are substrata for
Castilian, Gascon and Sardinian, all of them languages with f > h.
It is possible explain this change in this romanic languages only
by the efect of a substratum laguage not having / f / ????
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] p>f>h Celtic, Castillian , Basque, etc

This process of f>h can be similar to the p>h in Celtic languages. In Celtic
had the passage from *p to *h a *f as intermediary?
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...>
To: <>
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

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

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