Excluding much?

[Larry Trask]

[ moderator re-foramtted ]

Lloyd Anderson writes:

> It has been pointed out to me several times in private communication
> that Larry Trask's criteria in seeking to establish his list of
> "best" candidates for early Basque monomorphemic lexical items
> (I hope that phrasing accurately represents Trask's statements
> of his goals)

Yep.

> contains two parts which together will cause the total list to be
> very seriously reduced, to a tiny number of items.

> I think Trask should have an opportunity to clarify or deal
> with this issue publicly, so here are the specifics.

> Among other reasons for asking this explicitly,
> I understood one of Trask's more recent communications
> about Basque to be saying that there are more documentary
> sources available than I had previously understood him as saying.

Assorted fragments between the 10th and 16th centuries.  Substantial connected
texts date only from the 16th century.

> (The question on interaction of these two criteria is quite
> independent of other questions which have been under discussion.)

> 1.  Only include candidates attested in four out of five major dialect
> groupings
> (groupings I believe Trask has established based on his study of
> which are more closely related to each other, which more
> independent)

Very roughly, yes, but the main point of my groupings is that some recognized
dialects are smaller and less well described than others.  Note, for example,
in my earlier posting, the absence of any recorded words for 'butterfly' in the
three small Pyrenean dialects.

> 2.  Only include candidates from the earliest documentation,
>            either pre-1600, as Trask prefers,
>            or pre-1700, as he has said he is willing to consider a
> modification.

> Do these two criteria together mean that almost no lexical
> items will qualify, only the most rudimentary lexicon,
> words which are almost totally independent of subject matter and style,

Well, I'm not sure 'rudimentary' is the best choice of word.  But I expect the
words that make my list will mostly belong to that somewhat ill-defined area
commonly called 'basic vocabulary', yes.

> such as English "and, the, good, very, when, not, come, go"?

Grammatical words will indeed be prominent, insofar as these exist (Basque
often has affixes where English has independent words).  But I expect to get
several hundred lexical items as well.  However, see below for a problem with
verbs.

> How many does Trask estimate this would permit to be included?

Can't answer this before I've done the work, but I estimate several hundred.

> After writing the above, I read Trask's listings of ordinary vocabulary from
> the religious texts.  That is a very good list, and I thank Trask for it.
> Most of it, though by no means all, fits the category I mention just above of
> words almost independent of subject matter and style.

And I expect almost all of the words in my list to be like this.

> There remain for me two content questions.

> (a)  What happens to the list Trask posted, when he applies the rule
>      that four out of five dialects must attest each item to be included?
>      Still the very most basic vocabulary should survive,
>      perhaps a list much like what Trask just provided us,
>      but though I believe so, it is an empirical question.

It is.  As I may have explained earlier, this criterion is proposed to allow
the inclusion of words which are almost, but not quite, universal in the
language, like <(h)itz> 'word', used in all dialects but the western dialect
Bizkaian, which has the Romance loan <berba> instead.  But I have to draw a
firm line here.  For example, 'pine tree' is the Latino-Romance loan <pinu>
almost everywhere, while the eastern dialect Roncalese has <ler> and its
neighbor Zuberoan has <leher> in some varieties.  It is highly possible that
<leher> ~ <ler> represents an indigenous word displaced almost everywhere by
the loan word, but I can't be sure of this, and the word does not qualify for
inclusion.

Anyway, this illustrates one of my goals in pursuing this project: I hope to be
able to show that <leher> has exactly the form of an indigenous word, and hence
that it can plausibly be regarded as just such a word, now largely displaced.
But I can't reach conclusions like this one until I have first established the
forms of indigenous Basque words by examining the clearest cases.

> (b) When I wrote the following, there was a scope ambiguity:
>       Speaking of attestation primarily in religious texts:
>       >  That is a very strong bias of content, I would think against quite a
>       >  range of vocabulary from ordinary life.

> I intended not "against [there being] a range of vocabulary from ordinary
> life",
> which was Trask's interpretation in this case (a reasonable possibility),
> but rather I intended "against quite [large parts of the] vocabulary
> of ordinary life [which are not religious in content]".  The grammatical
> items and most basic adjectives, nouns, and verbs, would still occur,
> probably in all dialects, but whether measured in a single dialect group
> attestation in religious texts, or if requiring four out of five dialect
> groups,
> I would think many words like these would not be found
> in such a high proportion of texts which are not oriented toward
> a subject content which would promote their inclusion.

Quite possibly, but, yet again, my immediate goal is to find the *best*
candidates, not all possible candidates.

> I will *of course* be wrong about some of the following,
> but others could be substituted.  And I know from previous
> correspondence that Trask believes some of these are in
> vocabulary domains where almost all Basque vocabulary
> is loanwords from other languages.  I assume not all of the items of
> ordinary life which would fail to be widely enough attested would
> be such loanwords.  The following list is *of course* not
> designed with any knowledge specifically of Basque in mind.
> But it illustrates roughly some of what I mean is included
> by "ordinary life" on land and sea.

OK; let's talk about this list.  But first note a couple of things.

1. No ancient Basque verb is monomorphemic.  A native verbal root is a bound
morpheme, and hence no ancient verb will make my list.

2. Basque is *very* fond of compounds.

3. The entire Basque nautical vocabulary is borrowed.

4. The nature of the Basque terrain, and of Basque cultural traditions, means
that certain of the suggested words are unlikely to be prominent in Basque.

> "cartwheel",

A compound in English, and a compound in Basque.

> (horse's) "bit",

The most usual word is a Romance loan; the other is a compound.

> "fleece",

Two words: one a compound, the other shared with Romance but of unknown origin.

> "canal",

The Basques live in mountains, and they don't build many canals.  Of the two
existing words, one is borrowed (it's the same word as the English word, also
borrowed), and the other is a compound.

> "rafter",

Precise equivalents are compounds.  Even the English word is bimorphemic in
origin, though no longer transparently so.

> "threshold",

The English word is an old compound; the Basque one is a compound whose first
member is also a compound: 'doorway-stone'.

> "sunrise",

The English word is a compound, and so are the several Basque words.
This is a good example of a sense whose form has been repeatedly and
independently constructed in Basque by forming compounds -- a common phenomenon
in Basque

> "planet",

The English word is borrowed, and so is the Basque word, from the same source.

> "yoke",

Native and seemingly monomorphemic.  First one.

> "thresh",

A verb, but anyway all the several Basque words are derivatives, often from
nouns denoting the tools used -- another common practice in Basque.

> "root-cellar",

The Basque Country is built on limestone mountains, and the Basques, sensibly
enough, don't build cellars.  Instead, they build sheltered porches into their
houses.

> "eye" (of potato),

The English word represents a transferred sense, and Basque uses exactly the
same metaphor.

> "scrape",

Verb, and all the several Basque verbs here are derivatives.

> "consult",

Verb.  The English word is borrowed, and so is the Basque one -- from the same
source.

> "dig",

Verb, and a derivative.

> "build",

Verb.  No real Basque equivalent: 'erect', 'put up' is used for buildings,
'make' for other things.

> "rudder", "hull" (of boat),

All nautical, and all borrowed.

> "hull" (of seed),

Several words, almost all compounds or loanwords.

> "bill" (of bird),

A very interesting case.  The widespread word is <moko>, variant <mosko>, which
looks very much like an expressive formation, but is not definitely one.  The
word has been much discussed, and is widely suspected of being borrowed from
Romance, though the Romance origin is not at all obvious, and requires a bit of
fancy footwork.  Attested from 1571 -- early enough.  May possibly meet my
distributional criterion; I'll have to check.  But the widely held belief in a
Romance origin will probably disqualify it.

> "down" (of bird),

Derivative, and bimorphemic.

> "mast",

Nautical, and a loanword.

> "shear",

Verb, and derived from a noun.

> "midwife",

Compound in English, and compound in Basque.

> "stillbirth",

No simple Basque lexicalization known to me.  English word not recorded before
1785.

> "roe"

Compound: 'fish-eggs'.

> "kitten", "chick", "kid" (of goat), "foal", "filly",

Basque has a productive suffix <-(k)ume> 'offspring', 'young', and this is
regularly used to derive names for young animals.  All of these except 'chick'
are so constructed in Basque, while 'chick' is the obviously imitative
<(t)xito> ~ <(t)xita> ~ <txitxa>.  This last word will probably meet my
criteria, but will stand out a mile.

> "vixen",

Bimorphemic in English, and also in Basque: 'fox-female'.  Anyway, the Basque
words for 'fox' are borrowed, and, for that matter, so is the word for 'female'
-- as is the English word.

> "badger",

Another very interesting case.  The Basque word is <azkoin>, with about 18
regional variants.  Comparative evidence points to an earlier *<azkone>.
There are two stories about this:

	(1) It's a compound of <hartz> 'bear' with an unknown second element.

	Phonologically better than it looks, but that second element is
	mysterious.

	(2) It's borrowed from Latin <taxone(m)>.

	Phonologically good, apart from the irregular loss of the initial
	plosive (though there exist parallels).

Who knows?  Not sure what to do with this, but it looks too fishy to go
straight into the list.  Anyway, not recorded before 1745, and therefore out,
even though I agree at once that the numerous and peculiar regional variants
point to a much older word.

> etc.
> names of quite a number of plants and animals,

Names of indigenous large animals are usually native, with a few striking
exceptions like 'fox' and 'whale'.  Names of indigenous plants and trees are
about half native and half borrowed, though very many of the native ones are
compounds.

> perhaps some kin terms,

Most kin terms are native, but most are bimorphemic.

> some terms relating to marriage

As good Catholics, the Basques take many such terms from the Romance usages of
the Church.  There are certainly some exceptions, but most are bimorphemic.
Even western <itun> 'banns' can be shown to be a compound.

> ceremonies,

Almost all ceremonial terms are compounds or derivatives, and most of the rest
are borrowed.

> "visit",

Verb.  The English word is borrowed, and so is the Basque one, from the same
source.

> "adopted" (child),

The English word is the participle of a verb.  The Basque words are all
polymorphemic: no simple lexicalization.

> "village idiot",

The English word is a compound of two borrowed words, and any Basque word would
be a syntactic construction: the Basques do not appear to have a tradition of
village idiots.

> various kinds of earth and minerals and plant products,
> etc. etc. etc.

Too broad and general for me to comment on.

So, all in all, not many words here which can possibly hope to make my list.

[snip Biblical examples]

> Of course, Trask's samples were only a few lines
> from a New Testament preface and from Chapter One of Matthew.
> Once we include the entire text, things should be better.
> How much better?  I do not claim to know.
> That is why I think my questions in this message
> are really empirical questions.

Can't tell before I've done the work.

> Of course, if we correct our estimates again,
> by noting that even the rarest items which did occur
> in Trask's two short samples are not as rare as
> most of the sample items in the sketch I gave above,
> it again looks less probable that a wide range of
> rare vocabulary of ordinary life will be covered,

But I'm not looking for "rare vocabulary".  I'm looking for words that have the
strongest claims to being native, ancient and monomorphemic.

> therefore not a wide range of polysyllables,
> relative to the monomorphemic polysyllables
> which really did exist in spoken Basque of the time.

But I'm not looking either for "a wide range of polysyllables".  Long Basque
words are almost invariably polymorphemic -- just as in English.  How many
English words can you think of that are native and ancient but three or four
syllables long?

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk