Pre-Basque phonology (fwd)

[Roslyn M. Frank]

At 02:28 PM 9/17/99 +0100, Larry Trask wrote:

[LT]
>OK; I propose to reply to Roz's long two-part posting in several
>instalments, as time permits.

>On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Roslyn M. Frank wrote:

[LT]
>Fourth, we have a dictum in comparative reconstruction.  If variety A
>has a contrast which is absent from related variety B, then, unless
>there are very good reasons for doing something else, we reconstruct the
>contrast for the common ancestor, and conclude that the contrast has
>been lost in B.  Since the northern varieties of Basque have an /h/-zero
>contrast, absent in the south, we therefore prefer to reconstruct the
>contrast for the common ancestor, and to assume that the southern
>varieties have lost it.

The question is determining the rules for discovering what a "contrast"
might be. That is one of the points I have been trying to make in my
postings. For instance, as you well know, /h/ is considered a
suprasegmental feature in many environments. You yourself have stated this.
Secondly, it is also a well known fact that in Euskera vowels are often
separated by an intrusive consonant and not always the same one. For
example, we have the root-stem /ao/ which also appears as /aho/, /abo/ apo/
and /ago/. Indeed, the /abo/ as in /abokada/ (/abo-ka-da/) "bocanada (Sp.)"
or "mouthful", more literally, "an action done repeatedly with the mouth,
mouthing over and over") is commonplace. Are we to assume an original /aho/
which was reduced to /ao/ in souther dialects? Or was the original form
/ao/ which then under certain conditions was pronounced as /aho/ so as to
avoid the falling together of the two vowels: so that root-stem wasn't in
danger of undegoing permanent reduction (to */o/) rather than only a
momentary one as has occurred in the case of some compounds (/aomen/ vs.
/omen/). In other words there are many examples where there is an
intervocalic /h/ whose status is unclear.

Next, in referring to an /h/-zero contrast, I assume you are referring back
to your example of the minimal pair in /sei/ and /sehi/.

>> [LT]

>>> Second, we have minimal pairs in the aspirating dialects, like <sei>
>>> `six' and <sehi> `boy, servant'.  If we took *<sei> as the ancestral
>>> form in both cases, we would have no principled basis for explaining the
>>> modern contrast.

>> Unless <sei> is a more recent/ancient loan word, i.e., related
>> to items such as <seis> in Spanish.

>It is *extremely* unlikely that Basque <sei> is borrowed from Romance:
>its form militates against that.  However, there are plenty of other
>words available to make the same point: see below.

But I think in another venue you argued that <sei> was a loan word in Euskera.

>> In this respect I don't argue
>> with your logic, only your particular example. Had it been a
>> different one where the loan word status of one of the items was
>> less questionable and had the sample in question consisted of a half
>> dozen or so such examples of minimal pairs, its power of persuasion
>> would have been greater. This is a case where a more statistically
>> driven model might give us much better results. But that assumes the
>> need to collect data without eliminating one or the other of the
>> possibilities. For instance, one would need to collect data for all
>> the southern/central dialects in order to see how the problem of
>> polysemy is dealt with. In otherwords a stronger argument would be
>> to show that in northern dialects there are indeed an extended set
>> of minimal pairs in which the presence of /h/ (or [h] ?) is the only
>> distinguishing characteristic. The only one that comes to my mind is
>> that of /sei/ "six" and /sehi/ "boy, servant." To my knowledge,
>> northern dialects do notcontrast /behi/ "cow" with */bei/ meaning
>> something else; nor /behe/ "low, below, beneath" with */be/ meaning
>> something else. That doesn't mean that there might not be other
>> minimal pairs that could be examined.

[LT]
>We don't really need minimal pairs.

[RF]
But we do, Larry. You offered one example which I challenged. Indeed, for
the case to be made, one should be able to identify sets of minimal pairs
in northern dialects that differ only in the presence/absence of the
intervocalic /h/ and whose meanings are totally different. The following
lists do not provide that sort of information.

[LT]
>Take a look at some further
>northern forms.

><gai> ~ <gei> `material', <bai> `yes', <sai> `vulture', <goi> `high
>place', <gain> `top', <zain> `root', `vein', <soin> `body', <goiz>
>`morning', <lai> `a certain agricultural implement', <laur> ~ <lau>
>`four', <gau> `night', <oin> `foot', <min> `pain', and many others.

[RF]
But many of these forms are identical in northern and southern dialects??!!
So what does this prove? What are you trying to argue?

In the case of <gei>  I believe the northern variants include /gehi/.

[LT]
>But:

><nahi> `desire', <ohi> `habitually', <lohi> `mud', <behi> `cow', <behin>
>`once', <zahi> `bran', <bihi> `grain', <aho> `mouth', <zohi> `turf,
>sod', <ahal> `ability', <ahul> `feeble', <ahur> `palm of the hand',
><mihi> `tongue', and many others.

[RF]
As I said, these are not examples of minimal pairs. Nor are these examples
consistent in the sense that each of them has a northern and southern
variants, e.g., one with /h/ and another without.

So that leaves us where we started: there are northern variants that have
/h/ and southern ones that don't. And...

[LT]
>Now, if you want to maintain that the forms without /h/ are original,
>and that the forms with /h/ are innovations, then you must provide a
>conditioning factor.  That is, you must explain what the rules are for
>deciding when /h/ is inserted and when it is not.  Since I can see no
>possible basis for doing this, I conclude -- like everybody -- that the
>/h/ is original, and that the southern dialects have lost it, producing
>a number of new monosyllables there.

[RT]
Could one not argue that the conditioning factor was the introduction of a
consonant, a mechanism intended to keep the two vowels of the root-stem
from falling together, especially in compounds where stress could have led
to their reduction. The latter would have led to a loss of recognition of
the root-stem and hence the meaning of the compound; and that could have
affected the shape of the root-stem itself.  Mechanisms that allow for the
maintenance of the phonological shape of root-stems would seem to me to be
particularly important in a language such as Euskera, i.e., typologically
speaking.

Again if were could come up with a list of minimal pairs in northern
dialects that differ only in the presence/absence of /h/, we would have a
very strong case. But we can't. Didn't they exist?  And if they didn't
exist, why not?

Indeed, what I would like to determine is whether there are any examples at
all of minimal pairs other than that of /sei/ vs. /sehi/ which we've
discussed above?

Ondo ibili,
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