Hualde's view

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv at wxs.nl
Sun Feb 6 14:32:04 UTC 2000


larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk (Larry Trask) wrote:

>[quote from Hualde]
>>  (b) because the assimilation rule tends to apply only
>>  in restricted phrasal contexts. BUT assuming that this assimilation applied
>>  more frequently in the past (as  Michelena also assumes) it stands to
>>  reason that if <tator> and <dator>, <buru> and <puru>, and so on for lots
>>  of plosive-initial words, are variants of the same word in different
>>  phonological context, this would inevitably lead towards a merger of the
>>  voiced and voiceless oral stops in morpheme- and word-initial position
>>  (where the alternation is found) but not morpheme-internally. End of the
>>  story. The more complicated Martinet-Michelena hypothesis (which in
>>  addition requires an unexplained transformation from ancient to modern
>>  Basque) is, in my view, simply not needed and has no serious evidence in
>>  its favor. Thanks for allowing me to clarify my position.

>First, I query that word "unexplained".  The standard account holds that
>the explanation was mainly Romance influence.  This influence led to the
>introduction of contrasts like <kai> 'wharf, quay' (a loan) and <gai>
>'material' (a native word), and <pare> 'pair' (a loan) and <bare> 'slug'
>(zool.) (and other senses) (native).  This doesn't look to me like the
>absence of an explanation -- though of course no one is obliged to buy
>this explanation.

I think Hualde's "unexplained (transformation)" refers to the
change from Pre-Basque lenis-fortis to Modern Basque
voiced-voiceless [stops] / fricative-affricate [sibilants], in
*all* positions, not just initial.  But since this is a natural
change (one can compare Dutch, which now has pure
voiced-voiceless contrasts in its stop system, as opposed to
general Germanic fortis(aspirated) - lenis(unaspirated)), I'm not
sure what kind of explanation would be required.

>Second, why is this version less "complicated" than Michelena's?
>Michelena posits a Pre-Basque with no initial voicing contrast, developing
>under Romance influence into modern Basque, with initial voicing contrasts.
>Hualde appears here to be proposing a Pre-Pre-Basque with initial
>voicing contrasts, followed by a "merger" resulting in a Pre-Basque with no
>initial voicing contrasts, followed by modern Basque, once again with initial
>voicing contrasts.  This is simpler?

I'm afraid that if Hualde is serious about the "merger", his
explanation is not only not simpler, but leaves more things
unexplained.  In the first place, there are a good many
indications that Pre-Pre-Basque initial **p-, **t- and **k- had
simply been dropped (sometimes leaving an aspiration), as in the
well-known cases of *karr- > harri "stone", Aquitanian Talsc- ~
Halsc-, morpheme variants such as -tegi ~ -egi "house, place"
(maybe connected to Bq. etxe "house" < teg(i) + -xe (dim.)), etc.
But one can dispute or dismiss this evidence.

More seriously, a merger of voiced/unvoiced segments in initial
position, while in itself acceptable for the cases of **k-/**g- >
*g-, **p-/**b- > *b-, and (not sure how Hualde wants to interpret
these) **ts-/*s- > *z-, *ts'-/*s'- > *s-, leads to more problems
than Mitxelena's account already has in the case of supposed
**t-/**d- > *d-.  The problem is that there are no Pre-Basque
words beginning with *d-.  Hualde's merger doubles the problem of
the missing initial dental, and fails to explain the
superabundance of vowel-initial words.

Another fact which contradicts the merger of voiced ~ voicedless
stops in morpheme initial position is the phonological make-up of
verbal roots, which can start with contrasting b-, d-, t-, g- and
k- (e-man (*e-ban), e-dan, e-torr-i, e-gin, e-karr-i) [only *p-
seems to missing, except as a variant of *b, as in ipini ~ ibeni
"to put"].

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl



More information about the Indo-european mailing list