Pre-Basque Phonology

[Roslyn M. Frank]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:18:51 Larry Trask wrote:

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

[RF]
>> This is an example that I've never fully understood. There is no
>> attested evidence, to my knowledge, for any form like *<bade> and
>> quite obviously it's a reconstruction. Is it not, therefore, the
>> reconstruction that eliminates this item from consideration as a
>> monosyllabic parent-stem?

[LT]
>It is, but we must prefer reconstructed forms to modern ones when we
>have the evidence to support the reconstructions.  In this case, we have
>the well-supported observation that final plosives in lexical items are
>almost always secondary in Basque (probably absolutely always), and we
>have the evidence of words like <bedera> `one apiece' and <bederatzi>
>`nine' (< *<bederatzu>), which appear to contain our *<bade> as their
>first element, though with vowel assimilation.

[RF]
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>?

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)?

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.

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.

Roz