abarca/abarka/alpargata

[roslyn frank]

From: Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: non-IE/Germanic/h
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:42:07 +0000 (BST)

On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Rick Mc Callister wrote:

{RMC]
> haltha- "slope, slant, incline" > Halde "slope, hillside", heald [OE]
> "hillside"
> [< ?Vasconic;
> see Basque halde, alde, ualde < ?*kalde "face, side, flank"] [tv95,
tv97]

[LT]
The Basque word is <alte> in the eastern dialects but <alde> everywhere
else, as a result of the categorical voicing of plosives after /l/ in
all but the eastern dialects.  No such form as *<halde> is known to me.
Lhande's 1926 dictionary cites <halde> and attributes it solely to the
17th-century writer Oihenart, but Oihenart in fact used <alde>, and so I
suspect an error here.  (Lhande is full of errors.)

The form <ualde> is an error: this must be the compound with initial
<ur> `water', which appears as <uhalde> ~ <ugalde>, and means literally
`waterside'.

The central meaning of the Basque word is everywhere `side', with
transferred senses like `flank' and `region'.  I don't think it really
means `face', and it certainly doesn't mean `slope'.

[RF]
Part I <alde>, <alda> and  <halda>

There are several aspects of <alde> in Euskera that are not immediately
apparent from the discussion above. For example, it is commonly used in
conjunction with the derivational allative suffixing element <-era> (as
are other root-stems in Euskera) in its directional meaning of "toward."
Hence, <mendi aldera joango gara> "We are going toward the mountain" can
be converted into a spatially understood "noun-like" notion, namely, one
that refers to "the place that is  <mendi-aldera>."  That spatial notion
is not directly equivalent to "mountain-slope". But it certainly does
approach it in the sense that you are moving through a space identified
as "[the part] toward (the) mountain." In many senses the referentiality
of <mendi-aldera> would correspond, in terms of the spatially grounded
notion it comprises, what is understood in spatial terms to be "a slope"
or "mountain-side" in English.

Similarly, the verbalized form <alderatu> means either "to approach" or
"to go away from" depending on the positionality of the speaker's frame.
Furthermore, in the case of spatial content of expressions such as
<mendi-aldera> when they are used more abstractly, they come to be
understood as a close equivalent of the Spanish word <aldea>.  In
Euskera <zure aldera> (or more explicitly <zure alde-era>) can be
glossed as "the space/side near you" and is used as an equivalent for
"cercanma, regisn" and consequently, in given contexts <aldera> is
equivalent to <aldea> (Sp.) in its application as a "hamlet".   In other
contexts, <-alde> can be used in a more collective (spatial) sense,
e.g., <etxalde> "family property; household" from <etxe> "house" ;
<artalde (< ardi-(t)-alde>) "flock of sheep";  beitalde (< bei "cow"
<-(t)-alde>" "herd of cows'.  When the definite article (actually an old
demonstrative) is added, the resultant geographical/spatially oriented
expressions take on meanings close to those of "hamlet, village", e.g.,
<Aranzazuko aldea> "the area/location/community of Aranzazu," with a
similar sort of semantic extension as in the items cited previously
meaning "collective." Moreover, the frequency of such compounds in the
language have given rise to the phonological variant -talde, now
understood by many speakers only to mean "group, collective".

For anyone bilingual in Euskera and Spanish, the phonological
correspondences between <mendi aldera> and "la ladera del monte" are
striking.  I take no position concerning the role played by <alde/alte>
as a possible candidate inherited by Euskera and IE from some earlier
(pre-Rom.) linguistic substrate (substrata).  I only want to indicate
that things are a bit less clear cut than they might appear at first
glance.

Also, I'd mention that Azkue I:28 lists <alda> (BN-baig, L-ain) and
<halda> (BN, Sal.), the latter with the following definition: "faldsn,
parte inferior de una casaca, saya, levita o levitsn"/ "pan, basque,
partie infirieur d'un habit, d'une robe, d'une redingote."  In Euskera
one of the meanings of <alde> is "reverse, reverse side", specifically
Azkue I: 29 includes the following definition:  "anverso, cara de un
objeto"/"face, endroit d'un objet." From the point of view of sewing, it
would be the "facing" of the garment or its "inner/under-liner." Not
exactly the same meaning as  "skirt" but close, particularly if one
keeps in mind that <falda> (Sp.) has a very similar definition in sewing
terminology: it's the "(inside) flap, fold." One would need to look more
closely at the context of the Romance item in Medieval writings, e.g.,
in Berceo or El conde Lucanor.

Part II. <abarka> (Eusk) vs. <alpargata> (Sp.)

Rick Mc Callister wrote:

> >> abarca "sandal" s. X < pre-rom. [c]
> >> rel. con vasco abarka; ramz de alpargata [sandal] [c]
> >> pre-Romance, Basque origin [abi, wje]

[LT]

> >Basque <abarka> denotes a kind of rustic sandal, traditionally a soft
> >leather moccasin held on by a cord passed through holes in the sandal
> >and wrapped around the calf.  The word is very probably native, but
> >cannot be monomorphemic, with that plosive in the third syllable.
> >The favorite guess sees it as a formation involving <abar> `branch(es)'
> >and a noun-forming suffix <-ka>.  This is semantically awkward, and
> >seems to require that ancestral abarkas were made of foliage -- not very
> >comfortable, I would have thought.

>         maybe from cord made from pliable bark of branches? would that work?

> >Words of somewhat similar form and sense are found in Ibero-Romance and
> >in Iberian Arabic.  There has long been a debate as to just how all
> >these words are related.  Spanish <alpargata> appears to show the Arabic
> >article, but the Arabic word itself might be borrowed either from
> >Romance or from Basque.

>         The problem with <alpargata> is the /p/ which, of course, doesn't
> exist in Standard Arabic--but I don't whether Andalusian Arabic may have
> allowed it or not. There are words, though, with al-p- associated with
> Andalusian toponymy,etc.; e.g. the Alpujarras [sp?] and others that escape
> me now.
X Maybe someone else can help explain this

[RF]
Although I've lost track of who said what in the exchanges above,
the following is one model for explaining the concern raised :

In reference to the other ongoing discussion concerning  <abarka> (Eusk)
and <alpargata> (Sp.), the suffixed expression aldaketa (Eusk) is also
of interest. In it the common ending <-keta> is encountered.  The
root-stem <alde> in compounds becomes <alda->.  In Euskera <alde> and
especially the phonologically altered <alda> also carry the meaning of
"change, alteration."  In the case of the aforementioned <alderatu> it
can be understood to mean "to change place(s)," i.e., "to move to one
side." Similarly, the meaning of <alda> can be expanded to <aldaka> by
adding the derivational suffix <-ka>. In many contexts the suffix <-ka>
conveys a verbal notion of reiterative movement, i.e., somewhat like a
gerundive, whereas in others the reiterative force of <-ka> can be
reprocessed cognitively so that it produces a type of concept more like
a verbal noun. Indeed,  <-ka> even can be suffixed to conjugated verb
forms themselves to create emphatic expressions such as <badagoka>
(<ba-dago-ka> "yes, [they insisted that] it certainly is there!"

Thus, we have the compound <aldaka> which can be translated simply as
"side" or "change" while it carries a hidden verbal charge of
reiterative movement that is not apparent in the translation. The same
root-stem is brought into play in the compound <aldaketa> which again
would translate simply as "change" but because of the presence of
<-keta> the compound refers to "change" in terms of the notion of the
"(concrete) operation/action of changing."  However, since <-keta> does
not refer necessarily to the actual action (in process). Rather its
referentiality is to the notion of  "action" as a  (concrete
individuated) abstraction. Perhaps because of the meanings circulating
in the underlying structure of the suffix <-keta) (<*-ke-eta>),
compounds in <-keta> are commonly used to refer to a sort of verbal
noun. In addition, it is frequently used to refer to a collection,
conglomeration, or quantity of the same substance/thing, e.g.,  beiketa
"a bunch of cows."  There are also other nuances of <-keta> that could
be discussed. However, for our purposes let it suffice to say that
<-keta> is a common suffix and one understood to be indigenous to
Euskera. Furthermore, as I'm certain Larry can demonstrate with a long
list of examples, the ending is found in many place-names and therefore
is not considered an innovation in the language.

At this point we can turn to the other Euskeric root-stem that of late
has been mentioned frequently on this list: <abar>. First, I would like
to ask Larry what those involved in reconstructions of Euskera say about
the possible relationship between the forms <abar> and <adar>. Certainly
their meanings are quite close as well as their phonology. It would seem
that <abar> -if this is the innovative phonological form- has become
more specialized in its meaning, while <adar> continues to refer to both
a tree "branch" and/or "other branch-like protuberances," e.g., "horns"
Indeed, the meaning of  "horns" may well be the dominant one in today's
usage. If I'm not mistaken <adar> has been compared to forms in Celtic
(sorry I have almost no reference books where I am here in Panama). A
strong point in favor of the root-stem <abar->
Being a phonological innovation is the fact that it has produced no
compounds that  do not have their direct phonological counterpart in
derivational forms in <adar-> , e.g., <abargi/adargi>, with the same
identical meaning. The only compound of <abar-> whose meaning is not
encountered among those derived from <adar-> is precisely <abarca>, a
point that I will return to in the latter part of this mailing.

Finally, we have the form <abarketa> that Eduardo Etxegaray recorded in
his Diccionario etimolsgico (cited by Azkue I: 6) as a genuine Euskeric
compound meaning <alpargata> (Sp.).  Whether this is a correct
assumption I do not know. But what is clear is that at least a few
speakers of Euskera must have heard  <alpargata> (Sp.) and reprocessed
it as <abar-keta>.   Moreover, from the point of view of Euskera's
derivational rules, the alleged meaning of the compound <abarka>, i.e.,
as equivalent to <abarca> (Sp.) and <albarca> (Sp.), has always bothered
me. It never has felt right to me. In other words from the point of view
of derivational forms in Euskera, the type of referentiality conferred
by <abar-ka> simply doesn't match what would be needed to speak of
"shoes made out of bark, branches."  For example, one would have
expected to encounter the use of the compound derivational ending in
<-z-ko> in which the instrumental suffixing element of material, <-z >
would be functioning, e. g., arrizko (< arri-z-ko>) "something made of
stone." In contrast, *<abar-keta> could refer to something that the
branches (or perhaps the bark of the branches) had done or produced. For
instance, from <elur> "snow" we have <elurketa> "snow-fall."

 In contrast, the referenitality of the compound <abarka> is more like
"to go about branching" or perhaps "to branch about,." or perhaps even
"to stick out one branch after another",  none of which make much sense,
not even in Euskera, although maybe one could imagine a scenario in
which the speaker was trying to portray a scene in which the movement of
a tree was portrayed with it "rapidly sprouting one branch after
branch." In contrast, the root-stem <adar> with its strong meaning of
<horn> can easily be turned into a verbal noun or gerundive as <adarka>
"repeatedly striking blows with its/one's horns."  In the case of
<adarka> the word's other meaning "branch" is suppressed in interpreting
the compound's referentiality since there would appear to be no logical
counterpart for type of referentiality in question.

 For this reason I have always held a rather heretical position,
although I've never put it into print: that the borrowed form is
<abarka>, i.e., that it is a reflex of the Castillian forms of
<abarca/albarca>.  As far as I'm concerned, the original form, the one
that does make more sense in Euskera, would have been <abarketa>
(although perhaps in its original phonological shape *<adarketa>). In
this simulation *<adarketa> or <abarketa> would have passed into
Castillian in the Middle Ages through mechanisms not clear to us today,
perhaps together with the object itself, something seen as a unique type
of shoe. There it would have undergone phonological reduction to
<abarca> and/or undergone further modification to <albarca> in some
environments (the variant <albarca> would have emerged through some sort
of popular analogy to Arabic works beginning with what sounded like the
same initial vowel/consonant cluster).  Nonetheless, the longer form of
the compound <abarketa> would have survived in Ibero-Romnce as
<alpargata>.  And in this simulation of events, eventually the
apocapated form <abarca> was borrowed back by Euskera as if it were one
of its own because of the fact that the speakers recognized the
root-stem <abar-> in it.   In these wanderings, one should not
underestimate the possible role of Mozarabic speakers in converting the
*<abarketa> to <alpargata>.  I leave the questions of the phonological
likelihood of such changes having taken place in Ibero-Romance and
Arabic and the hands of those on this list who have far more expertise
than I do in those fields.  This is one explanation for the data. There
are probably many others.

Izan untsa,
Roz
March 17, 1999

Department of Spanish & Portuguese
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242 U.S.A.
e-mail: roz-frank at uiowa.edu
[Currently on leave in Panama]