Re: Foot/below

From: tgpedersen
Message: 33346
Date: 2004-07-02

--- In, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 09:42:46 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >from Löpelmann's dictionary of the Basque in France
> >
> > pede: abl. "(at the) foot" Latin
> > pé "foot, foundation, base"
> >
> > pé de "beside" Galician
> > ao pé da lettra "literally"
> > be- pref. "(going) inside or below" Basque
> > 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 Miguel
> >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.

Since I assume anyway that the hypothetical donor language had a
Verner-like(?) alternation p/b (p/bH?), it might have had a root
*poin-/*b(H)oin- "foot, leg"

(loan in) Pre-pre-Basque *poin- > Basque oin "foot"

(loan in) Pre-PGmc. (or a PGmc. substrate?) *bHoin- > PGmc- *bain-
"leg, bone" (therwise unexplaine, I believe)

(zero-grade(?) loan in) Pre-pre-Basque *binV- > Basque behe

I haven't seen any rules of the development of vowels in pp-Basque,
which makes me uncertain in the last case.

> In any case, the word did not originally start with *p-, but
> with b-, and a derivation from Latin/Romance pedem/*pEde is
> impossible (that would have given Basque *bede, not behe).

In that case, the Galician/Portuguese constructions might be
substratal (the Portuguese possibly taken from Galician, given the
direction of the Reconquista). But afaIk there was no ethnic
connection between Galicia and the Basques, or the present Basque

Is -tik (petik) a Basque case suffix?