Basque <(h)anka>

[Larry Trask]

Roz Frank writes:

[on Basque <(h)anka> 'haunch', 'leg' (and other senses)]

>  There does seem to be a good case that could be made for <(h)anka> being
>  related to the French/Romance forms mentioned above and consequently a
>  recent borrowing.

Overpowering, I'd say.

>  But what is one to make of the Basque word <zango>
>  (<zanga-> in composition) that means 'leg, foot, calf' and its phonological
>  variant in <zanko, zankho> (<zanka-> in composition) with the same
>  meanings?

The word is <zanko> or <zanka> in Zuberoan, <zango> in the rest of the French
Basque Country, and usually <zanko> south of the Pyrenees, though <zango> in
High Navarrese.  The widespread presence of <zanko> in the south is clear
evidence of a late borrowing, since an inherited *<zanko> would have
developed regularly to *<zango> in the early medieval period -- as indeed
has happened in much of the north, in which this voicing process seems to
have persisted longer than elsewhere.  The combining form <zanka->, of course,
is perfectly regular in Basque.

The word variously means 'paw', 'foot', 'leg', 'calf', according to region,
with various transferred senses in places, such as 'track' (of a game animal)
and 'jack' (in cards).

The source of the word is clear.  It is the very widespread Romance word
which appears in Castilian Spanish as <zanca> 'calf', 'leg (of a bird)',
'shank', and, according to Corominas, also 'stilt'.  Castilian also has
an altered form <zanco> 'stilt'.  The same word occurs in Portuguese,
Mozarabic, Catalan, and perhaps elsewhere, with a range of senses
including 'wooden shoe', 'kind of sandal', and 'stilt', at least.
(I'm not sure if Italian <zampa> 'leg (of an animal)', 'paw', 'foot'
represents the same word or not.  Anybody know?)

This word is derived by Corominas from a late Latin <zanca> 'kind of shoe'
(no asterisk, according to Corominas).  And this he traces to Old Persian
<zanga-> 'leg', the source of modern Persian <zang> 'leg'.  He proposes
that the Persian word was carried west into Europe by cobblers, especially
since (he says) shoes were an eastern invention which passed into Europe
via Persia.

But, whatever you may think of Corominas's account, the loan status of
the Basque word is certain, and the origin is unlikely to be anything
other than the Romance word.

>  Are we to assume that 1) it that isn't related in anyway to
>  <(h)anka>;

It is assuredly not related.

>  2) that Euskera borrowed a French form and then added a sibilant
>  to it;

No.

>  3) that Euskera has two totally unrelated words, one borrowed and
>  the other native;

No.  Both borrowed from Romance.

>  or 4) that Euskera has two words, one clearly a recent
>  borrowing and yet another that derives from a deeper layer, i.e., a western
>  European substrate that gave rise to the Romance items as well.

If Corominas is right, the source is Persian, not an unknown European
substrate.

>  If one were
>  to choose the fourth alternative, it would provide a slightly different
>  source for the Old French <haunche> and one wouldn't have to rely only on
>  an unattested Germanic/Frankish form, but rather there would also be an
>  amply attested word field available for comparative purposes in Euskera.

Sorry.  Out of the question.  Anyway, even though the Frankish word is
unrecorded, its descendants in Dutch and Romance suffice to prove its former
existence.

It is curious that no native Basque word for 'leg' can be reconstructed.
If there ever was one, it has been lost beyond recovery.  But maybe the
native <oin> 'foot' once meant 'leg' as well.  This is a common state of
affairs in languages.

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk