abarca/abarka/alpargata

[Larry Trask]

On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, roslyn frank wrote:

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

[snip quotes]

> 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!"

I agree with most of this.  The noun <alde> `side' exhibits the expected
combining form <alda-> in word-formation, and hence the verb <aldatu>
`change' (and other senses).  The localized noun <alda> `moving (house)'
(and other senses) is clearly related and is likely a back-formation
from the verb.  I would describe the suffix <-ka> as adverbial in
nature, though I agree it often forms adverbs with iterative senses,
though not always: <zaldika> `on horseback', from <zaldi> `horse', for
example, is not iterative.  The adverb <aldaka> is unremarkable.
Adverbs in <-ka> do indeed sometimes get reinterpreted as nouns, a fine
example being <hika> `speaking to someone with the familiar pronoun
<hi>', which is now a noun for many speakers.  Finally, the noun
<aldaketa> `(a) change, transformation' is unremarkable, being formed
with the remarkably productive suffix <-(k)eta>.

[snip]

> Perhaps because of the meanings circulating
> in the underlying structure of the suffix <-keta) (<*-ke-eta>),

I don't think <-keta> is *<ke-eta>: I think it's just a variant of
<-eta>, exhibiting the frequent, if rather puzzling, Basque pattern of
variant forms with and without initial /k/.

> 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.

Agreed.  The suffix <-(k)eta> is exceedingly common, both in common
nouns and in place names, and is clearly of some antiquity.  But its
indigenous status is questionable.  It may possibly derive from Latin
<-eta>, the plural of the collective suffix <-etum> and the etymon of
the Castilian collective suffix <-eda>, but we are not sure about this.
(Spanish also use <-edo>, from singular <-etum>, of course.)  The
Castilian suffix is chiefly used with plant names; the Basque one is
widely used with plant names but has other uses, as Roz points out.

> 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.

This is a celebrated vexed question.  The next three specialists you ask
will probably give you three different answers.  But let's look at the
evidence.

The word <adar> is attested from the 12th century, or about as early as
anything is attested in Basque.  The very first attestation, in Picaud's
famous glossary, *appears* to mean `horn' (the musical instrument),
though the context is not totally clear.  An early Spanish chronicle,
for which I have no date, also reports the word as denoting a kind of
trumpet, apparently used for calling attention, not for music.  The
word's first appearance in a Basque text comes in 1545 (Detxepare),
where it means `horn (of an animal)'.  From 1562 it is attested in
Basque texts as `horn' (the musical instrument); from 1692 as `drinking
horn'; from 1745 (Larramendi's dictionary) as `horn' (the material).
However, from 1571 (Leizarraga), it is attested as `major branch of a
tree, one growing from the trunk'.  Finally, from 1664, it is recorded
as `branch' in the extended English sense: `branch of a river', `branch
of a road', and so on.  The word appears to be old, but the evidence
points somewhat toward the conclusion that `horn' (of an animal) is the
original sense.  The word does not appear to exist in any neighboring
Romance variety.

Note also that the existence of Old Irish <adarc> `horn' and of related
Celtic words has led most Vasconists to see the Basque word as borrowed
from Celtic, though the IEist C. D. Buck interestingly prefers to see
the Celtic word as borrowed from Basque, an interpretation which
requires a certain amount of fancy footwork to account for that final
plosive.  Any comments here from IEists?

The word <abar>, interestingly, is nowhere recorded before Araquistain's
1746 supplement to Larramendi's 1745 dictionary.  The earliest sense is
`branch (of any size) of a tree or bush', `branches, foliage'.
Especially in the plural, it is also well recorded from an unspecified
later date as both `branches collected for firewood' and `remains,
residue'.  In the form <abarra>, what appears to be the same word
appears in several neighboring Romance varieties, with senses like
`long, thin branch' and `firewood'.  We may surmise a loan from the
Basque definite form <abarra>.

Now, what the hell does all this mean?  There are several views, but
pretty much everyone believes that <abar> and <adar> are unrelated words
which have become to some extent tangled up because of their chance
resemblance in form, and probably because <adar> `horn' has developed
extended senses overlapping with those of <abar> `branch'.  Only van Eys
and Gabelentz have dissented here, but Gabelentz was no Vasconist, while
van Eys, who was, was just about the worst etymologist that Basque
historical linguistics has ever seen, save only for the outright
loonies.

An interesting proposal, put forward several times, sees <abar> as
deriving from <habe>.  This word commonly means `pillar, column' today,
but its earliest recorded sense is simply `tree'.  The key here is that
Basque has a number of two-syllable nouns ending in a morph <-ar>, most
of which denote things commonly encountered in bunches, and not
individually, like <negar> `tears', <izar> `star', <sagar> `apple',
<ondar> `sand', `remains', <ilar> `peas', and others.  We have long
suspected that this <-ar> might represent a fossilized collective
suffix, and the suggestion here is that <abar> might derive from <habe>
`tree' plus this *<-ar>.

Anyway, the absence of early attestations of <abar> is curious, since
the word is common enough today.  But I might note that a word
<harriabar> `hailstorm' is recorded in 1571.  Here the first element is
clearly <harri> `stone', but what on earth is the force of <abar>?
Suggestions on a postcard, please.

> 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->

I think it's the other way round: two unrelated words which have become
entangled, with `animal horn' being the original sense of <adar>.

> 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>.

Interesting.  According to Sarasola, <abarketa> does not have the same
meaning as <abarka>: rather, <abarka> denotes a leather moccasin tied
up with laces, while <abarketa> denotes a rope-soled fabric sandal.  The
word <abarketa> is recorded only from 1893, while <abarka> is recorded
in the 11th century.  It is possible that <abarketa> represents a
folk-etymology of Spanish <alpargata>, but the phonological resemblance
is sufficiently vague to make me cautious about such a view.

> 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."

I broadly agree, but <abarka> is the form -- though bear in mind that
its derivation from <abar> is not certain.

[snip]

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk