From: tgpedersen
Message: 33346
Date: 2004-07-02
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 09:42:46 +0000, tgpedersenGalician,
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >from Löpelmann's dictionary of the Basque in France
> >
> > pede: abl. "(at the) foot" Latin
> > pé "foot, foundation, base"
> >Portuguese
> > pé de "beside" GalicianPortuguese
> > ao pé da lettra "literally"
> > be- pref. "(going) inside or below" Basquemight
> > pe "underside, ground floor,
> > the ground" Basque
> > -be, -bi,
> > -pe, -pia suff. "under" Basque
> > -pean, -pian
> > (inessive of pe) "under" (after indef. nouns
> > or poss. gen.) Basque
> > pera adlative "going under, towards" Basque
> > petik "from below, hidden,
> > going below and through" Basque
> > peka adv. "below, uner the ground, hidden" Basque
> > peko "lower, subordinate,
> > lower in rank" Basque
> >
> >
> >Löpelmann thinks Basque borrowed the root from Latin or Romance,
> >which it then turned into pre- and suffixes. The free word <pe>
> >as well have been "reconstituted" from the suffix (-pe), as MiguelSince I assume anyway that the hypothetical donor language had a
> >proposed for <tegi> "shed".
>
> In most dialects, the word is <behe> (<bee>, <be>), and the
> reduction to -pe (< -bhe < -behe), besides -be, occurred in
> suffixal position only. It's indeed possible that the
> independent word pe (AN, R, Z) was backformed after the
> suffixal form.
> In any case, the word did not originally start with *p-, butIn that case, the Galician/Portuguese constructions might be
> with b-, and a derivation from Latin/Romance pedem/*pEde is
> impossible (that would have given Basque *bede, not behe).