Pre-Basque Phonology

[Larry Trask]

On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Roslyn M. Frank wrote:

> [LT]

>>>> And <bat> `one' is pretty clearly derived from earlier *<bade>.

> Does your last statement mean that you would argue that *<bade>
> should be the reconstructed form and that <bedera> derives from
> *<badera> and then that later went through vowel assimilation to end
> up as <bedera>?

Yes.  This is Michelena's analysis, and I endorse it.  (Basque <bedera>
= `one apiece', `one each'.)

> Also, does this mean that you would consider <bederen> and <bedere>
> as further evidence for reconstructiing *<bade> as the proto-form.
> And does it follow that you would consider <bederen> and <bedere> as
> additional supporting evidence for the following statement made by
> you, namely, "the well-supported observation that final plosives in
> lexical items are almost always secondary in Basque (probably
> absolutely always)?

These items don't have final plosives, so they are not directly
relevant.  But northern <bedere(n)> `at least', `as for' very likely
also contains the same stem.

> An aside. Doesn't the combination "probably absolutely always"
> strike you as semantically confusing? I thought "always"  was
> "always" and by its own nature admitted no exceptions. Hence, it
> wouldn't ever need a modifier/qualifier like "absolutely" whereas
> "probably" undermines the entire edifice.  Just trying to translate
> your meaning/intention.

I had just written `almost always', so I then wrote `absolutely always'
to emphasize my statement.  Poor style, no doubt, but native to me.

> Returning to the topic. Stated differently, isn't the "well
> supported observation" you mention above based, in part, on the
> elimination of such commonplace examples as <bat> "one"  that if
> accepted as "evidence" would prove the contrary? It is the
> reconstruction that eliminates the attested form from consideration
> as "evidence," right? In summary, the word <bat> "one", according to
> your analysis, shouldn't be listed as a monosyllabic root-stem in
> Jon's list.

The position is this.  Modern Basque contains a modest number of lexical
items ending in a plosive /t/ or /k/.  Very many of these are either
obvious loan words (like <ganibet> `knife', from Gascon) or obvious
expressive formations (like <zirt-zart> `decisively').  After these are
eliminated, only a few remain, and in most of these the final plosive is
clearly of secondary origin, as in western <bart> `last night' (from
<barda>, preserved in the east), and western <bost> `five' (from
<bortz>, also preserved in the east).

Since this leaves only a couple of plosive-final items unaccounted for,
we may reasonably surmise that these too contain plosives of secondary
origin.  In fact, it's not easy to think of an example other than <bat>
`one'.  But the apparent derivatives like <bedera> `one each' and
<bederatzi> `nine' seem to point to an original *<bade> for this word.

Note also that <bat>, unlike most other numeral names, is postposed to
its head -- and postposed items in Basque frequently undergo irregular
reductions in their phonological material.

As for whether we should count <bat> as an original monosyllable, well.
In many other cases the evidence that a modern monosyllable derives from
an earlier disyllable is overwhelming.  In this case, I think the
evidence is deeply suggestive, but rather less than overwhelming.  So it
depends on how strong you judge the evidence to be.  My own view is that
the evidence is probably just about good enough to reconstruct *<bade>,
and so I wouldn't count the word as a monosyllable.  But another
specialist might genuinely disagree with me, and hence count the word as
a monosyllable.  I wouldn't object to that, but I am pretty confident
that it will turn out to be the only monosyllable ending in a plosive --
at least among the words meeting my criteria for probable native and
ancient status -- and hence that it will stand out sharply from the
other words in the list.

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk