From: dgkilday57
Message: 70457
Date: 2012-11-15
>Basque dialects also have <gipulla> and <dipula>. We are dealing with a culinary Wanderwort, and it is very rash to assert *k- > *t- within any one dialect. Your own theory involves unspecified other languages with their own soundlaws before the High Middle Ages.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > I rejected that etymology before, and believers in "expressive
> palatalization" need to explain why a mushroom would produce such a
> demand for expressivity in speakers that only palatalization could
> satisfy it. Are we talking about a MAGIC mushroom?
> >
> Although not widespread, palatalization of velar stops (especially at
> word-initial) is no way uncommon in Basque: kipula > tipula, kortika >
> tortika, kupa > tupa, *kapel > txapel, coloma > txoloma, *gaus > deus,
> etc.
> > (presumably used to explain on 'good' from Romance bono),If Aquitanian is so heterogeneous, there is even LESS reason for making these equations. Martinet's theory invokes Latin influence for reduction of fortes (which I find "incroyable", like several other points in his section 14.10, pp. 378-9 of the 2nd ed., 1964). Do you really want this influence in Aquit. inscc.?
> > >
> > > 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 indÃgena
> de Aquitania".
> >
> > When ONE GUY invokes an array of optional Aquitanian soundlaws that
> would make Sean Whalen blush, forgive me for not jumping aboard the
> bandwagon. Schuchardt was polemically opposed to the Neogrammarian
> school and yet he came NOWHERE NEAR Gorrotxategi in allowing such
> arbitrary variations in interpreting onomastics.
> >
> You seem to ignore that "Aquitanian" is an epigraphic corpus
> representing more than just one linguistic variety (probably a dialectal
> continuum), as shown by lexical isoglosses like this one. Another one is
> t-/h-, a particular case of Martinet's Law by which fortis plosives at
> word-initial got aspirated into /h/ or zero.
> > Obviously I have nothing against "submerged languages" (i.e.Christianization never really goes to completion, and it may take centuries for the Church to become dominant in a given area.
> > 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.
> >
> In my view, along Paleo-Basque there were other linguistic varieties
> with different soundlaws, and which finally merged with Paleo-Basque in
> the High Middle Ages ("Vasconization").
>
> > > 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'.
> >
> > Mariner dates the beginning of Christianization to the 3rd-5th cc.,
> with <aingeru> from <angelus> reflecting the onset of palatalization of
> /g/. Solar disks on tombstones and pagan characterization in the
> Chanson de Roland tell us nothing about the date of the FIRST churches
> in the Basque Country.
> >
> But this doesn't mean these Christians were Basques or spoke
> Paleo-Basque, but rather their own dialect was replaced by Basque.
> > Anyhow, whatever century it comes from, the fact remains thatI doubt it, and <ponte> 'tufa' is from Latin <fontem>.
> <borondate> has initial bo-.
> >
> Comming from an earlier *p- as in poz, ponte, putre, palatu, pago, etc.
> > So does <bortitz> 'strong',The latter from Lat. <fortis> directly.
> >
> Also attested as portitz.
> > I prefer to consider on 'good' ancient,I changed my opinion. Now I think that *gd- would give a long (or fortis) dental stop, realized as *t-.
> >
> > > 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/.
> >
> > Mute plus liquid is different.
> >
> This is your opinion, not mine.
> > and such borrowing still fails to explain the combining form <giza->,Some examples of compounds still hint at the distinction.
> > 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.
> >
> > The form is explained by MY theory, and as explained, the distinction
> in connotation has been levelled out.
> >
> That is, it was erased without leaving any traces. This again speaks
> against it.
> > Two lenes produced a fortis (as in apais < abbas, zapatu < sabbatum)He used a special sign [b.] with a circle subscript.
> > which is hard to reconcile with any theoretical view failing to regard
> > consonant strength as the primary feature.
> >
> > > Please explain.
> >
> > Martinet said that ancient Basque opposed initial [pH]
> >
> = fortis /p:/
>
> > to [b],
> >
> = lenis /p/. I think you didn't read him well.
> > and since Latin [p] was unaspirated, it was heard as [b] in <bake>I suspect that the strength distinction was secondary to length, and that long consonants resulted from earlier clusters.
> 'peace' and other words.
> >
> Not exactly. It was heard as a lenis /p-/, which was rendered as [b] in
> the std variety of Basque. I think Proto-Celtic had a similar system,
> except for the absence of /p:/ [pH], which was spirantized into /F/.
>
> > I think ancient Basque opposed [PP] to [P] (i.e. fortis/geminate
> against lenis/simplex), so that Lat. [bb] was heard as [PP], reflected
> in modern Basque as [p].
> >
> Not only from Latin but also from other sources, as in *s'abbo (Semitic
> *s^abb-) > Spanish sapo, Aragonese zapo, Basque (z)apo, afo, apho
> 'toad'.
>
> > This distinction applied to other consonants, so Lat. <anno:na> yields
> Bq. <anoa> 'provisions', and <castellum> yields <gaztelu>, not *-eru.
> >
> Actually, this was postulated by Mitxelena more than 40 years ago.