Basque 'sei'

[Larry Trask]

Ed Selleslagh writes:

> Iberian has two sibilants (and also rhotics) that might very well be the same
> as the Basque ones, including the affricated varieties.

Iberian certainly had two contrasting sibilants (at least), but the phonetic
nature of the contrast is entirely unknown.  Aquitanian probably had at least
four, and perhaps six, of the things, but the Roman orthography was defective,
and the various sibilants were not written in any very consistent manner.

> The Castilian s and z/c (theta) are the descendants of the old Basque-type
> distinction, I believe.

I don't follow.  Castilian /s/ simply continues Latin /s/, except that it is
apical, whereas the Latin /s/, on the Basque evidence, was probably laminal.
But the Castilian theta derives ultimately, in most cases, from Latin /k/
before a front vowel; this is thought to have become some kind of affricate
before developing into theta (or into /s/, according to region).

> What about Arabic? It certainly has various sibilants.

Yes, but it does not have an apical/laminal contrast, and I know of no evidence
that Arabic phonology had any effect on Castilian phonology, still less on
Basque phonology.

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk