From: Torsten
Message: 69214
Date: 2012-04-02
>Tum-di-dum:
> 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.
>