Pre-Basque Phonology

[Roslyn M. Frank]

At 04:04 PM 10/15/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Roz Frank writes:

>[on Basque <bat> 'one' from *<bade>]

>> In other words, for you the meaning of <bedera> is "one apiece"? I think
>> you defined it this way in an earlier mailing, also.

>Yes.  The word has other meanings, but 'one apiece' is the most widespread,

Just how wide-spread in your opinion? And what are those other meanings?

>and, more importantly, it's the earliest sense recorded -- in Leizarraga, in
>1571.

I'm curious what precisely the sentence was in which the term had that
meaning. Could you provide it?

I'm assuming it might be something like "Bakoitzari liburu bedera" (which
could be glossed roughly as "a book to each one"). Or is found it some
other context? It is important to pay attention to the nuances of the term.

>>  Hence, the data set under analysis consists solely of <bedera> and
>> <bederatzi> since these are the only two examples mentioned by Michelena,
>> right?

>Primarily, yes.  There are one or two other words which may also be connected,
>but these are less clear.

Could you share with us what are these other one or two words are precisely?

>> You have shared with us two statements concerning the etymology of <bat>:
>> First your own which you phrased as follows:

>> 1). that <bat> "is pretty clearly derived from earlier *<bade>."

>> Then you provided us with a paraphrase or synopsis of Michelena's
>> statements on the topic:

>> 2). that in Michelena's opinion the etymology from *<bade> "lacked
>> compelling evidence" and hence
>> "was not secure." It should be considered, therefore, "only a plausible
>> suggestion."

>> Having read over Michelena's comments, I believe your summary of them,
>> provided above, is quite accurate and appropriate. It expands on
>> Michelena's representation of *<bade> as "*<bade>?". He clearly didn't feel
>> fully confident about it. Also, above you state that you "endorse Gavel's
>> and Michelena's suggestions," once again emphasizing the tentative nature
>> of the reconstruction and once again a very measured statement on your part.

>Correct.

>> However, there is a third instance in which you have spoken about this same
>> problem although in rather different terms. Specifically on that occasion
>> you stated the following:

>> "It is most unusual for a native Basque word to end in a plosive, and <bat>
>> is clearly from earlier *<bade> or *<bada>  suggested by  the morph <bede->
>> in derivatives as (northern) <bedera> 'one apiece' and <bederatzi> 'nine'."

>> To my knowledge Michelena did not list the second etymon *<bada>, although
>> perhaps he did so on some other occasion, i.e., not in his work _Fonetica
>> Historica Vasca_.

>The variant proposal *<bada>, which I do not endorse, was not made by
>Michelena, but by somebody else more recently.  Sorry; I've forgotten who it
>was.

I have not found any reference to it except in your book which doesn't list
a citation for the source. If you listed it also in your doctoral
dissertation (1979?), perhaps you included the citation in that version.

>> As you will recall, the above quote is found on page 273 of your book _The
>> History of Basque_. Your statement, therefore, seems to contradict what you
>> have shared with us on the IE list or at least to be far less cautious.
>> Furthermore, I note that in your book you list <bede-> as a morph, not as
>> *<bede->. Earlier on this list you also affirmed that <bedere(n> contains
>> the same morph, if my memory serves me right.

>No; I didn't affirm any such thing.  I merely noted that it was possible.

>As for <bede->, this is an attested morph, and so it gets no asterisk.

I'm not following this discussion here very well. First, I thought that in
this scenario <bedere>, <bedere(n)> and <bedera> are proposed as related
items, i.e., as sharing the same elements or at least the same
root-stem/morpheme. And, second, I thought that you/Michelena were
proposing that the root-stem/morpheme of <bedera> was *<bede>. And then
from that assumption, proposing that <bat> should be reconstructed as
*<bede>. Other than this, if <bede> is an attested morph, could you give me
a source/explanation for your allegation.

I repeat: to my knowledge, *<bede> is not attested in Euskera outside of
its hypothesized existence, i.e., from a reconstruction of <bedera> from
*<bede>. Stated differently, the morph *<bede> comes into exsistence as the
reconstruction of <bat> because of the fact that <bedera> is deconstructed
as *<bede-ra>. This latter reconstruction of <bedera> is what brings the
morpheme *<bede> into being; otherwise it is not attested anywhere.
Correct? It all depends on whether one accepts this derivation for <bedera>.

>> Before you wrote your book, did you discover additional evidence -beyond
>> that presented by Gavel and Michelena- which strengthened your conviction
>> concerning this version of events? And if you did find additional proof for
>> this position, could you share it with us?

>> Furthermore, based on your statements in the email on this topic cited
>> above ("I can claim no credit."), you seem to be saying that all you have
>> done is repeat the positions of Gavel and Michelena, nothing more. Yet in
>> this section of your book you do not cite or otherwise overtly refer to the
>> specific works of Gavel nor Michelena where they discuss this problem.
>> Indeed, your statement "<bat> is clearly from earlier *<bade> or *<bada>"
>> leaves the impression that there is no other possibility: that yours is a
>> summary of the consensus opinion.

>I am more enthusiastic about *<bade> than Michelena was, that's all.

Why?

>I don't know if there exists a consensus.  But I know of nobody who has
>criticized Michelena's proposal of *<bade>.

Do you know of anyone other than yourself who has discussed it at any
length? Remember, as you yourself stated, Michelena wasn't particularly
convinced by the data. So he wasn't really inviting people to agree or
disagree with him. Stated differently, he wasn't setting it up as something
to be defended or criticized. In fact, as far as I know, this item is not
something that has been debated at all in print, other than a brief email
discussion which took place on Basque-l some time back.

Best wishes,
Roz
************************************************************************
Roslyn M. Frank
Professor
************************************************************************
Department of Spanish & Portuguese
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
email: <roz-frank at uiowa.edu>
fax: (319)-335-2990