Re: bidet

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

>
> I am not convinced that any separate Pyrenaic Romance is necessary,

although your comments in another message indicate that Pyrenaic Basque
should not be assigned to Roncalo-Souletin. Probably it belonged to the
Navarrese group instead, extending eastward and making R-S an oasis of
phonetic conservatism surrounded by Nav. dialects.

>
> Since your Pyr. Rom. has phonological features characteristic of

Basque (or at least of High Nav.) and requires a Basque or Vasconic
substrate anyway, why not cut out the middleman and save? How
un-Occamic to postulate two substrates when one will do!

>

Sorry, but you forgot the SPECIFIC treatment of -ll- in Pyrenaic, shared
with West Asturian and Gascon but NOT with Basque. Using Occam's Razor
to negate the existence of submerged languages is most untasteful.

> > Also -ll- gives an alveolo-patatal /tç/ affricate in Pyrenaic

(also

> > found in West Asturian and similar to the retroflex stop of South
> > Italian and Sardinian dialects) but not in Basque. This is why from
> > Latin pullu- we've got Basque pullo (L, LN, Z), pollo (Z), pollu (Z)
> > 'donkey' with a lateral palatal vs. potto (Bazt) 'colt, young

horse',

> > potxa (B) 'colt', potx (B, G) 'interjection for calling a young

donkey',

> > with /c/ and /tS/ .
>
> I see no reason to refer Bazt. _potto_ to Lat. _pullu-_ when it could

just as easily represent VL *puttu- resulting from contamination of
_pullu-_ with *pu:ttu- 'offspring, child, young, etc.'; the latter
underlies some Romance terms for 'whore' (from 'girl'), e.g. Sp. _puta_,
It. _puttana_.

>

But Basque pullo 'donkey' is from Latin pullu-, so there's no need to
devise a separate etymology for potto. How un-Occamic to postulate two
etymologies when one will do!