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

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:41:57 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

>--- 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?

It's obvious.

>> >(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.

You must have misunderstood...

Ah, found it. Trask, p 76-77. You have indeed misunderstood.

Modern Older spelling
spelling Spain France

z c/ç s
s s ss
x x ch

tz tç ts
ts ts x
tx ch tch

These spellings are a logical consequence of Spanish and French
orthographical conventions. Old Spanish distinguished between laminal ç/c
(modern interdental /T/) and apical s/ss. The shibilant was written <x>
(modern /x/, written <j>), with affricate <ch>. In French, the spellings
<s> (also <ç>), <ch>, <ts> (also <tç>), <tch> are as expected. To
distinguish apical /s/, which does not exist in French, some creativity was
required, which explains <ss> (the normal French way to write /s/ between
vowels) and <x>, a middle French spelling for /ts/ in voiz ~ voix (/voits/,
modern /vwa/), croiz ~ croix (/kroits/, modern /krwa/), the <-x> presumably
echoing the Latin nominatives vox, crux, etc. [Another source of French
<-x> is from a ligature of u+s, as in chevaux etc., with <u> restored
later].

>> 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>?

Isn't it obvious? What other letter in the Latin alphabet would you
choose?

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...