W dniu 2012-04-02 00:04, Tavi pisze:
> However, I'm going to give you a couple of examples:
>
> PNC **=unddzE* 'to hide, to steal, to conceal' (= stands for a class-prefix)
> Paleo-Basque **bints* (*u > i* by delabialization)
> Basque *mintz* (B, G, HN, S, R) 'membrane, film', (B) 'milk cream', (HN)
> 'wheat grain with husk'*, mintzi* (R) 'membrane, film'
> Spanish *binza*, Aragonese *binza, bienza* 'membrane, film; peritoneum'
*Problems on the Basque side*
I leave aside your reconstructed *ts vs. Modern Basque <tz>, since you
have already explained your convention in your reply to Brian.
As for the initial consonant, Basque also shows dialectal variants with
/b/ and "hypercorrect" /p/ (<pintza>). The word is nowhere recorded
before the year 1802. The treatment of the initial and the very late
attestation suggest borrowing from Aragonese rather than the other way
round. The usual Romance meanings seem to be 'membrane under the shell
of an egg; onion skin'. One possible VLat. source is *vinctia-
'wrapping', admittedly a little speculative, but far less speculative
than what you propose.
*Problems on the "North Caucasian" side*
The reconstruction is problematic. You use Starostin's reconstruction,
but note the author's comment: "The root is not widely attested in EC
(only in PTs [Tsetzian]), thus the etymology is somewhat dubious
(although phonetically and semantically plausible)." I may add that the
affricate of the supposed West Caucasian cognates is not the expected
reflex of PNC *3_ according to Starostin's own system. As the affricate
is the only segment that WC and Tsezian have in common in this root, the
reconstruction is in fact worse than dubious: it should be dismissed.
*Problems with the comparison*
The wide semantic latitude ('membrane' : 'steal, conceal') is the nail
in the coffin for this etymology.
> PNC **bo:nddz(w)V* 'a k. of vessel'
> Paleo-Basque **bontsi*
> Basque *ontzi* 'ship', (B, G, HN, S, R) 'vessel', *untzi* (Bazt, L, LN,
> Z) 'ship; ve ssel', (L, LN) 'stomach', *unzi* (LN) 'ship'
*Problems on the Basque side*
Where is the evidence for Proto-Basque *b in this word? Of course *bo- >
o- is a *possibility*, but is it supported by any facts?
*Problems on the "North Caucasian" side*
To quote the author of the etymology again: "Reconstructed for the PEC
level. Not very reliable, because of the strange behaviour of the stem
in Lezghian languages; besides, labialised -3w- should not have yielded
-t.t.- in a cluster in PN. Contaminations of originally different roots
may be the reason". In other words, even admitting all potentially
cognate forms (which, however, do not obey Starostin's own rules), the
word is not really reconstructable as Proto-North-Caucasian. If one
eliminates the aberrant forms, the only thing that remains is Chechen
<battam> (not even securely Proto-Nakh), with not quite the right stop
in the middle.
-------
*General problems*
What are these two pairs of etyma supposed to demonstrate? The
correspondence of Basque <tz> : North Caucasian *3_(w)? They don't show
any such thing, since most of the NC forms quoted by Starostin have the
either the *wrong* consonant or some other irregularity.
Even if both etymologies were flawless, two examples would scarcely be
enough to define a "regular correspondence". However, both are seriously
flawed even within Starostin's system, and the corresponding PNC
reconstructions are unreliable by the author's own admission.
*Conclusion*
No valid evidence of anything here.
Piotr