Re: [tied] Re: Anouilh

Thanks (a bit late) Miguel!
So if anything it's a castlian -> basque influence, not the other way
around.

Harald

> >> 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:
> >
> >I recall he doesn't address the ser/estar distinction in castilian,
> >could that possibly be a basque or other influence ?
>
> pp. 292-293: <izan> "to be" == Sp. <ser>, <egon> "to be" == Sp.
> <estar>. The use in Southern Basque is exactly as in Spanish, but in
> Northern Basque <egon> is rarely used (only with animate subject and
> locative/comitative complement), <izan> being commonly used in all
> circumstances. This suggests that the use in Southern Basque is a
> calque on Castilian (as it surely is in Southern Basque <eduki> "to
> have" == Sp. <tener> vs. *<edun> == Sp. <haber>). Note that <estar>
> is also used in Catalan besides <ésser> (although under more
> restricted circumstances than in Castilian), even though no Basque
> substrate can be posited for (at least Eastern) Catalonia.
>
> The development "to stand" -> "to be" (just like "to sit" -> "to be",
> as in Sp. <ser> < SEDERE) is something that was latent in Vulgar
> Latin, and does not require Basque substrate to explain it. In fact,
> these are common developments in general: PIE *h1es- "to be" is bound
> to have some relation to PIE *h1e(:)s- "to sit", and my personal
> theory is that Basque <egon> "to be" [see above] and <etzan> "to lie
> (down)" share part of their paradigm:
>
> EGON (to remain, to be)
> (present) (past)
> na-go nen-go-en
> ha-go hen-go-en
> da-go ze-go-en
> ga-u-de < ga-go-de geunden < gene-go-de-n
> za-u-de < za-go-de zeunden < zene-go-de-n
> da-u-de < da-go-de zeuden < ze-go-de-n
>
> The plural morpheme is *-de, which is highly irregular, as the
> absolutive plural suffix is usually *-z, *-(t)za or *-z-ki, while *-de
> is otherwise an exclusively ergative plural suffix.
>
> The missing plural forms of EGON resurface in the paradigm of ETZAN:
>
> ETZAN (to lie)
> (present) (past)
> na-tza nen-tza-n
> ha-tza hen-tza-n
> da-tza ze-tza-n
> gautza < ga-go-tza geuntzan < gene-go-tza-n
> zautza < za-go-tza zeuntzan < zene-go-tza-n
> dautza < da-go-tza zeutzan < ze-go-tza-n
>
> (The regular plurals of ETZAN should have been: ga-tza-tza ~ ga-tza-z
> etc.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>