Re: [tied] Six, -ts- > -ks-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:12:29 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
>
> >Here's the interesting part: it turns out that Basque -tz-
> >corresponds to Aquitanian <-x->, presumably -ks-
>
> Certainly not /ks/.

And how do you know that?

>
> >(BTW for some odd
> >reason the French Basques still spell -x- for -tz-)
>
> They don't.
>

They once did, then. I found that in Trask.

> >haritz, Arixo "oak"
> >-belex, beltz "black"
> >Berhax-, beratz "soft, benign"
> >Bihox-, Bihos-, bihotz "heart"
>
> The spelling is actually quite random:
>
> Basque Aquitanian examples:
> z ss (gizon) cisson
> s (gizon) cison
> (zahar) sahar
> tz x (haritz) arixo
> (beltz) belex
> (bihotz) bihox
> s (beltz) beles
> (bihotz) bihos
> (bortz) bors
> (hartz) hars
> s s (neskato) nescato
> (seme) sembe
> (sehi) seni
> ts s (herauts) heraus
> x (otso) oxo
> xs (otso) oxson
> ss (otso) osso(n)
>
>
> Trask: "The unsystematic fluctuation among <s>, <ss>, <x> and <xs>

strongly

> suggests that Aq. had more contrating sibilants than could be

accomodated

> in the Roman alphabet [] It appears that the otherwise unneeded <x>

was

> pressed into service to deal with some of the Aq. sibilants, but

that no

> consistent system of transcription was achieved"
>

Yes, but why <x>?

Torsten