From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 70373
Date: 2012-11-01
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57"Why? It's irrelevant, since I'm talking about a Basque
> <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <bm.brian@> wrote:
>>>> At 9:01:00 PM on Tuesday, October 30, 2012, stlatos
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>>>> <bm.brian@> wrote:
>>>>>> At 4:01:13 PM on Tuesday, October 30, 2012, stlatos wrote:
>>>>>>> Where did Asena:rius come from, if not brd < Bq?
>>>>>> Cognomen from <asinus>.
>>>>> Then why Aznar?
>>>> Presumably because the Latin (or Romance) sibilant sounded
>>>> more like the Basque laminal sibilant than like the Basque
>>>> apical sibilant.
>>> It's ce not se > z(e) in Sp. Aznar only makes sense if
>>> from Bq * asYenari with Asenarius a Latinization of it
>>> (otherwise > X Aznario).
>> Note however Basque <zentzu> 'sense' (Latin <sensus>,
>> acc. -um), <zerbitzatu> 'to serve' (*servitia:re, acc.
>> supine -a:tum), <zela> 'saddle' (<sella> 'seat', acc.
>> -am), <gauza> 'thing' (<causa> 'matter, affair'), <anzer>
>> 'goose' (<anser>), <zagitatu> 'to set in motion'
>> (*sagitta:re 'to loose an arrow', not from <sollicita:re>
>> 'to bother' as some suppose), Souletin <zeku"ru">
>> 'lifestyle' (<saeculum> 'lifetime; century'), and the
>> numerous words with Bq. -zt- from Lat. -st-.
> I'm questioning supposed Latin s > Sp z ,
> not > Basque. The point I'm making is that it should be,For a sufficiently idiosyncratic definition of 'all'.
> from ALL evidence, a Basque word to begin with.