Plosive-liquid clusters in euskara borrowed from IE?

[Larry Trask]

On Wed, 19 May 1999, Jon Patrick wrote:

> It is taken me sometime to reply to this message as it left me so
> incredulous after first reading it.

Why?

[on `native' and `ancient' words in Basque]

> Clearly with a language like basque which you yourself have said is
> conservative one would be expect a strong relationship between what is
> "ancient" and what is "native"

A relationship, perhaps, but not identity.

Anyway, let me clarify a bit.  Basque is phonologically rather
conservative, in that the phonological changes in the language during
the last 2000 years have not been dramatic -- though changes there have
most certainly been.

Lexically, however, Basque is much less conservative.  It has borrowed
many thousands of words from its neighbors, and it has constructed many
more from its own resources.  One day I hope to compile a list of the
Basque words that can reasonably be regarded as monomorphemic, as native
and as having been in the language for at least 2000 years.  I don't
expect that list to contain more than several hundred words.

[on what Azkue says in his preface]

> On translating the french we have the expression "primitive or
> non--derived" which I can only take as attributes such as "early",
> "native", "original". As well the or(ou) can be read as an inclusive
> "or" encompassing both primitive words AND foreign words.

OK.  Here's what Azkue says on p. xxxvi, section 5:

"Les mots en capitales ou majuscules sont primitifs ou non derives, les
autres etant imprimes en minuscules ou caracteres courants, excepte
naturellement la lettre initial.  Par exemple, BESO s'ecrit ainsi parce
qu'il est primitif, original; Besokada, Besondo et Besope en minuscules,
parce qu'ils sont derives.  Mais il est bon d'avertir que seuls les
derives de theme et de desinence connus seront consideres comme tels.
Des mots comme AIZKORA, AIZTUR, AIZTO, dont le theme est connu, mais non
la desinence, et d'autres tels que SALDU, GALDU, dont la desinence est
connue et non le theme, sont imprimes en lettres majuscules, comme s'ils
etaient primitifs."

This is perfectly clear.  Azkue is using `primitive' to mean
`monomorphemic', `not derived from another word'.  He is not using it to
mean either `native' or `ancient'.  This is clarified further in section
IX on p. xv:

"Quant aux termes exotiques, j'ai adopte ceux qui ne possedent pas
d'equivalent pur, et qui ont acquis droit de naturalisation dans notre
langue, comme ELIZA `eglise', LEGE `loi', ERREGE `roi', LIBURU `livre',
MEZA `messe', etc."

Note that these admitted loan words are entered in capital letters,
because Azkue regards them -- correctly -- as `primitive': that is, as
monomorphemic.  Not necessarily ancient, and certainly not native: just
monomorphemic.

There is nothing unusual about Azkue's choice of term.  He was writing
well before modern linguistic terminology was established, and, in those
days, `primitive' was the usual technical term applied to a
monomorphemic word, in French, in Spanish and in English.

Here's an extract from the entry for `primitive' in the second edition
of the OED:

II.4.a. *Gram.* and *Philol.* Of a word or language: Original, radical:
opposed or correlative to derivative.

Among the supporting quotations, the 1824 quote from Lindley Murray's
famous grammar of English is particularly illuminating:

"A primitive word is that which cannot be reduced to any simpler word in
the language: as, man, good, content."

Note Murray's third example: `content'.  This is plainly not a native
word, and it is not even particularly ancient in English, being first
recorded only in 1526.

[LT]

>     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.

> I have searched for words to describe this text and the best I can
> come up with is "bizarre". Putting the translation problem above
> aside we have the following situation.

> 1. basque is a conservative language (something you've asserted
> elsewhere)

Yes, but not so conservative that it hasn't changed at all.  Far from
it.

> 2. most materials we have from Roman times that are clearly basque
> or prebasque (sometimes called Aquitanian) are readable as such and
> offer little problem in recognition.

Somewhat overstated, perhaps.

A number of the elements found in the Aquitanian names have transparent
or plausible interpretations in modern Basque.  But many others do not.
Perhaps around 50% of the identifiable elements are interpretable, or
somewhat more if we arbitrarily declare some of the more puzzling names
not to be Aquitanian at all.  (In fact, some of these names are
certainly not Aquitanian, but it's a bit naughty to declare *every*
troublesome name to be non-Aquitanian.)

> 3. Azkue gives a list of words that he regards as "primitive or
> non-derived"

Yes: as monomorphemic.

> 4. Therefore those words in Azkue's list that are not identifiable
> as loans represent significant evidence about the possible form of
> ancient/early basque.

Sorry; this does not follow.  The mere existence of a word in modern
Basque is no guarantee that it is either native or ancient.

> 5. Those non-loan words are valid and meaningful for appraisal of
> any theory about "early basque"  for whatever time period you want
> that term to be applied to.

Nope.  Consider what you're saying, and compare English.  Suppose I wish
to defend the position that Old English did not allow words to begin
with the consonant /z/.  If I look at a dictionary of modern English, I
can find a number of words beginning with /z/.  Some, of course, are
loan words, like `zero', `zygote', `zinc' and `zoo'.  Others are native
but not ancient, like `zap', `zipper', `zilch' and `zoom'.  A couple are
native and of some antiquity but have unusual histories, like `zax' and
`zounds'.

Now, in what way do these words bear upon the proposition I want to
defend?  In particular, how do they cast doubt upon my position?

[LT]

>     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?

> If you want to justify you hypothesis, yes I do expect it. This
> comment smells to me like I have contaminated a much loved theory
> with some live data and it has raised an unbearable stench.

Hardly.  That word list is simply not relevant to the point under
discussion, that's all.

[LT]

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

> I think my statements above have explained why I find this comment
> simply "bizarre"

I don't see why.  A dictionary of modern English is of no direct
relevance to ascertaining the nature of Old English, and a dictionary of
modern Basque is of no direct relevance to ascertaining the nature of
Pre-Basque.  You might as well try to find out what Latin was like by
reading a dictionary of modern French.

[on changes in English]

> The evidence available in english is not the evidence available in
> basque.

Sure, but there *is* good evidence for the phonological nature of
Pre-Basque.  You can find 600 pages of such evidence in Michelena's book
Fonetica Historica Vasca.

> Azkue is one of the largest evidence sources available for studying
> the development of basque, all be its limitations. As you so often
> say we should look at the evidence. I'm merely asserting the
> importance of not excluding evidence that is legitimately admissible
> for appraisal.

With respect, Azkue's dictionary is not the most appropriate place to
look for evidence about Pre-Basque.

[LT]

>     I pointed out that the terms `native' and
>     `ancient' are utterly independent, and that my claim was about ancient
>     words, not about native ones.

> here we disagree, the two terms are not independent.

Yes, they are, and I can't understand how you can disagree.  Look at
English:

	head	native and ancient
	bishop	ancient but not native
	zap	native but not ancient
	pizza	neither native nor ancient

[on my apology]

> I don't accept your apology, it is clearly not sincere.

Jon, what on *earth* is going on here?  My original posting was not
intended to give offense; I never suspected it might give offense; and I
can't see now why it should have given offense.  Yet you declare
yourself offended.  So, mystified, I apologize, and now you refuse my
apology because you believe -- wrongly -- that it is not sincere.

What am I supposed to do: fess up that I was out to get you from the
beginning?  Honestly.

[JP, earlier]

>     >  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?

[LT]

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

> I think the sarcasm here, which as far as I am concerned is
> inappropriate in professional discourse, further demonstrates the
> lack of sincerity in your apology above.

Jon, I can detect no sarcasm whatever in my remark.  You have come very
close to accusing me of unprofessional and dishonest behavior, and I
have responded only with mild exasperation, not with sarcasm.

Apparently you have decided, for reasons best known to yourself, that I
am out to get you.  Why?  What have I done that's so awful?

> My sole point is that admissable evidence be admitted to the debate
> and be appraised. It may well turn out that that evidence supports
> your hypothesis and hence strengthens your case. That doesn't mean
> that it is not open to scrutiny again at another time. The essence
> of good scholarship in my experience, admittedly from non-linguistic
> disciplines(computing, & psychotherapy) was to always be prepared to
> revise even the oldest "laws". I characterise this notion as
> perpetual preparedness for flexibility.

I have no quarrel here.  It's merely that I do not accept the suggestion
that the words of modern Basque are directly relevant to determining the
morpheme-structure constraints of Pre-Basque.

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk