Re: bidet

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

>
> If Bq. oilo 'chicken' comes from *boilo < pollo with "regular loss
> of /b/ before /o/"
>
> > I suppose in that context the labial stop was lenied to a voiceless
> > fricative /F/ (IPA "phi"), which later disappeared. It also occurs
> > before /u/ in words such as furca > urka, fulano > ulain (actually,
> > this is the situation in Iberian). Compare the Asturian anthroponym
> > Ordoño and the Spanish surname Ortuño < Fortu:nius. As a

matter

> > of fact, labiodental /f/ is realized as [F] in many parts of

Northern

> > Spain, something which would explain its (conditioned) aspiration

as

> > /h/ in Gascon and in most varieties of Spanish (but lost in the std
> > variety).
>
> But all your examples involve Latin/Romance f-, not p-, so this single

word <oilo> requires an ad-hoc assumption. That is why I prefer to see
a borrowing from the Gaulish equivalent of <pullus>.

>

This is very unlikely. Spanish pollo gives Basque oilo just as Romance
fongo gives onddo (with expressive palatalization).

> (presumably used to explain on 'good' from Romance bono),
>
> > Most Vascologists agree in considering Basque on a native word, as

it's

> > attested in Aquitanian inscriptions as BON-, HON-, -PON.
>
> I see no reason to equate these onomastic elements with each other, or

with Bq. <on>.

>

See Gorrotxategi (1984), "Estudio sobre la onomástica indígena de
Aquitania".

> why is there Bq. borondate from Lat. (acc.) volunta:tem?
>
> > Because this word was borrowed from a non-Basque Pyrenaic language
> > which kept the labial stop, as in pullus > pullo (L, LN, Z), pollo

(Z),

> > pollu (Z) 'donkey', also with variants where Latin -ll- is rendered
> > into a palatal stop /c/ <tt>: potto (Bazt), pottoko (Bazt) 'colt,

young

> > horse', pottoka (L, LN) 'mare'.
> >
> > This submerged Pyrenaic language, whose remains can be found in the
> > Aragonese and Bearnese Romances, as well as in Basque itself, has

been

> > studied by linguists such as Elcock and García de Diego.
>
> Obviously I have nothing against "submerged languages" (i.e.

substrates), but <borondate> is not some oddity in Basque. Its
importance in ordinary speech suggests that it was adapted directly from
Latin by bilingual speakers.

>

This is actually Church Latin from the late (8th century or later)
Christianization of Basques. The suffix -(i)tate can also be found with
a "indigenous" root in the dialectal form pegorritate (LN) 'extreme
misery', from pegor (LN) 'sterile, poor'.

> I prefer to consider on 'good' ancient,
>
> > See above.
>
> and gizon 'man' (against giza-), which occurs in Aquitanian
> onomastics, to be originally 'good man, bonhomme'.
>
> > IMHO Basque gizon is a loanword from Celtic *gdonjo- 'man', most

likely from Gaulish.

>
> I would expect an initial affricate or sibilant in Basque, not

anaptyxis,

>

Why so? Even Iberian adapted the Latin ahtroponym Flaccus as /bilake/.

> and such borrowing still fails to explain the combining form <giza->,

which I regard as the original unmarked 'man', not 'good man', though
semantic devaluation has erased this distinction, as with <gentleman>,
<caballero>, etc.

>

Although ther form giza- remains unexplained, there's no such
connotation in the Basque word.

> Two lenes produced a fortis (as in apais < abbas, zapatu < sabbatum)

which is hard to reconcile with any theoretical view failing to regard
consonant strength as the primary feature.

>

Please explain.