Plosive-liquid clusters in euskara borrowed from IE?

[Jon Patrick]

    [JP]

    > I think you position is extremely conservative. My response is as above.

[LT]

    OK.  Let's consider two fairly extreme cases.  Basque <buru> `head' is
    abundantly attested in all varieties at all periods; it is first
    attested in 1042 (exceptionally early by Basque standards); it forms
    numerous compounds and derivatives; it appears in many surnames and
    place names, some of them attested in the Middle Ages; and it does not
    appear to be shared with any other known language.

    But Basque <margo> `color' is first attested only in about 1800; it is
    recorded *only* in a book written by the Spanish writer Hervas y
    Panduro, who himself knew no Basque; it is attested nowhere else at all
    before the 1890s, when the Basque nationalists discovered it in Hervas's
    book and started using it, since when it has become established in the
    language; it occurs in no Basque text written before the 1890s and in no
    dictionary before 1905; it forms no derivative recorded until well into
    the 20th century.  So, even though the word is commonplace today, our
    sole authority for its historical reality is Hervas

    Now, I take the following view.  Basque <buru> is a maximally strong
    candidate for native and ancient status, and must be included in any
    list of the type I propose.  But <margo> is quite otherwise: its native
    and ancient status is dubious in the extreme, and it must be excluded
    from my list.

    Of course, the evidence does not *prove* that <margo> is not native and
    ancient.  It merely makes the word a feeble candidate for such status.

    Does anybody see anything unreasonable about this?

[JP]

I don't see anything at all unreasonable about your position. I fully agree
that the meaning you have cited above should not be used in a analsysis of
basque phonology. Nor is that inconsistent with my statement that if we have
reliable evidence about the  history of the word it should be used in
preparing these lists. However, Azkue reports a 2nd meaning of it a "river
fish" from Zuberoa and its use as a variant of <margol> from Bizkaia. Perhaps
that may justify still including the word in the list - what do you think?
jon

Jon
______________________________________________________________
The meaning of your communication is the response you get