Re: Vasco-Caucasian and the comparatine method [was: Stacking up on

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> > 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.
>

As documented by linguists such as Coromines, there's ample toponymy evidence of Basque-like dialects being spoken in the Pyrenees at least until c. 1000 AD before being replaced by Romance.

> 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.
>

I disagree. AFAIK this word isn't attested anywhere else in Romance, so a "Vulgar Latin" etymology is highly unlikely.

> *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.
>

An irregular correspondence usually indicates borrowing on either side.

> *Problems with the comparison*
>
> The wide semantic latitude ('membrane' : 'steal, conceal') is the nail in the coffin for this etymology.
>

Should I remind you of Sanskrit s´áras 'cream, film on boiled milk' < IE *k´el- 'to cover, to conceal'?

> *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.
>

AFAIK, this root corresponds to IE *(s)pondh- 'wooden vessel', so if it exists in IE, then it must exist at all.

> *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".
>

But these aren't the only examples available, of course.

> However, both are seriously
> flawed even within Starostin's system, and the corresponding PNC
> reconstructions are unreliable by the author's own admission.
>

Nobody has said that Starostin's reconstruction of Proto-NEC (a better defined entity than NC) is the last word on the subject. Rather on the contrary, it's a pioneer work which allows for further improvements. In fact, i've heard about two specialists (Schultze and Nichols) working on this field.

> *Conclusion*
>
> No valid evidence of anything here.
>

I *strongly* disagree.