Plosive-liquid clusters in euskara borrowed from IE?

[Larry Trask]

On Mon, 3 May 1999, Jon Patrick wrote:

[not too sure why this is on the IE list, but here it is]

[ Moderator's reply:
  Because it continues to return to IE, especially Romance, data for the
  prehistory of Basque, and provides Basque data as a check on the developments
  in Romance.  But if you wish to move this particular discussion to another
  forum, please feel free.
  --rma ]

[on my claim that Pre-Basque did not permit plosive-liquid clusters and
Jon's query in terms of words in Azkue's 1905 dictionary of Basque
containing such clusters]

> I note that my original reference referred to native words and hence the
> diversion of this response into "ancient" words is just that.

I am mystified.  My assertion was about the Pre-Basque of some 2000
years ago, and about nothing else whatever.  As I pointed out earlier,
words in Pre-Basque did not contain such clusters, regardless of whether
they were native or borrowed.  So, it is `ancient' which is relevant
here, not `native'.

[LT]

>     Third, Azkue does not claim that the words entered in his dictionary are
>     native.  On the contrary, he declares explicitly, in section IX of his
>     prologue, that he is entering words of foreign origin which are well
>     established in Basque

[JP]

> As you presented in a later message and which arrived as I was
> preparing this response the relevant section of Azkue's dictionary
> is Section XXIV.5, which states that the words in uppercase are
> primitives or non-derivatives "les mots en capitales ou majuscules
> sont primitifs ou non derives" (pardon the lack for accents)

> These are the words I sent to you in the previous email. I believe
> my comment "he asserts are native words" is a valid interpretation
> of his work. I was particularly concerned that your first email did
> not reference this section and was going to refer you to it. Now it
> appears that you are aware of the section and was remiss in not
> referring to it in your first message.

No, not at all.  My reference to section IX was not a response to you at
all, but to somebody else who had commented on Azkue's use of upper case
for certain entries.  I was only commenting on that point.

I'm afraid I can't agree that your interpretation of Azkue's "primitifs
ou non derives" as `native' is valid.  It seems perfectly clear that
what Azkue means here is, in modern terminology, `monomorphemic', and
not `native'.  Even if there could be any doubt about this, Azkue
explains clearly in section XXIV.5 what he means.  To the best of my
knowledge, Azkue nowhere uses the term `native', or any equivalent, in
his prologue.

>    [LT]
>     That said, I cannot possibly comment on every word in Jon's long list.

> Why not? They constitute the whole corpus of material that Azkue has
> presented which is contrary to your claim.

No.

First of all, Azkue has not presented any material at all which is
contrary to my claim.  My claim is about the Pre-Basque of 2000 years
ago.  Azkue's book is a dictionary of the Basque of the 16th-19th
centuries, a completely different period during which Basque has plainly
tolerated plosive-liquid clusters.  Azkue's dictionary has not one word
to say about Pre-Basque.

Second, your list was hundreds of words long.  Do you really think I
have so much time on my hands that I can afford to devote days to
ferreting out known or probable etymologies for every single word in
that list?

> I doubt that any such list has ever been compiled before for basque
> scholars to investigate. Here is the perfect opportunity for you to
> settle once and for all if your claim can be substantiated. Do you
> have no wish to explore and re-investigate old knowledge no matter
> how well established it is, in the light of new evidence? Is there
> no sense of true scientific exploration in your spirit where
> everything is always up for reappraisal?

The problem is that the entries in Azkue's dictionary are of no
relevance whatever to the nature of Pre-Basque.

Specialists believe that Pre-Old-English had only 16 consonants.
Any decent dictionary of modern English will reveal that the language
now has 24 consonants (in most accents).  Would anybody regard this
observation as casting doubt on the validity of the claim about
Pre-Old-English?

English has changed its phonology substantially in the last 1500 years
or so.  And, of course, Basque has changed its phonology in the last
2000 years.

Old English had no phonemic voiced fricatives; modern English has four
of them.  Pre-Basque did not tolerate plosive-liquid clusters; modern
Basque does.  These things happen.

> In terms of examples you have chosen and the tone of the remainder of your
> message I can only say I feel you have totally compromised you usual high
> standards of scholarship. You were asked:
> " Larry would you say that there is not one word in this list that is
>  not problematic for your thesis,..."

> and you chose not to answer that question.

Sorry, but I did answer it.  I pointed out that the terms `native' and
`ancient' are utterly independent, and that my claim was about ancient
words, not about native ones.

> Rather you selectively ignored the bulk of the evidence and chose
> the most extreme examples of the total set to covertly ridicule my
> attempt to explore and understand this claim and in the end divert
> the topic to a comic play off on words.

No, nothing of the sort.  If I've inadvertently offended you, then I
apologize, but that was never my intent.  All I did was to select a few
representative words from the list whose origins were familiar or
obvious, and point out that these words, of varying origins, could not
be ancient in Basque.  No ridicule was intended.

> As basque scholars know, you included, the Azkue dictionary has its
> flaws but it is also a fine piece of scholarship, and you have
> applauded his work in your own book, so any material based on his
> dictionary deserves close scrutiny, despite the fact we know we will
> find some clear mistakes.

Agreed, and in fact the late Luis Michelena devoted a fair amount of
time to uncovering the mistakes in Azkue's dictionary.  In my book The
History of Basque, I myself point out some of the major shortcomings of
the dictionary which users should be aware of.  But the bottom line is
that a dictionary of modern Basque is of no direct relevance to the
nature of Pre-Basque.

>  I have seen many examples in this list and on other lists where you
> have insisted that claims for phenomena are unjustified because
> there is no supporting evidence. Yet in this case you are prepared
> to omit evidence that can be rightfully presented for appraisal. Can
> we expect that on other occasions you have also played fast and free
> with omitting legitimate evidence for appraisal because it didn't
> suit your case?

Gee whiz, Jon -- you seem to be really cheesed off for some reason, and
I can't imagine why.

Azkue's dictionary is of no relevance here.  What *is* relevant, as I
pointed out briefly in an earlier posting, is the treatment of Latin
loans into Pre-Basque.  In these loans, plosive-liquid clusters were
*invariably* eliminated in one way or another.  This shows clearly that
the phonology of Pre-Basque did not permit such clusters -- or, in plain
English, that the speakers of Pre-Basque could not pronounce them.

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk