Basque 'sei'

[Eduard Selleslagh]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv at wxs.nl>
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 12:35 PM

[snip]
>One problem with apical vs. laminal /s/ is the lack of data.
>Because of the fact that the two *are* distinguished
>phonologically in Basque [I'm not aware of any other language
>where this is the case], and this fact linked with the
>observation that the default /s/ in Castillian is apical, has led
>to a decent amount of data being available for the areas
>surrounding Basque and Castilian.

[Ed Selleslagh]

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

The Castilian s and z/c (theta) are the descendants of the old Basque-type
distinction, I believe. S. American Spanish spoken by indigenous peoples mostly
uses a (more or less) laminal s for orthographic s and z.

What about Arabic? It certainly has various sibilants.

[MCV]
>As to myself, were it not for the fact that I've studied a bit
>phonetics, I would have spoken Dutch with apical /s/ my whole
>life without even knowing it (now I do so knowing it: too late to
>change now).  Nobody ever told me, or probably even noticed...

[Ed]

The Dutch pronunciation of s varies with the main dialect groups.  In Holland
it is almost always apical, in Flanders much less so, especially in the central
area (Brabants). In Antwerp it is laminal.

This has probably to do with the fact that Dutch dialect groups have different
origins (Ingwaeonic, Frankish, Saxon,...) and are not the result of divergence.
Dutch is rather the result of convergence.

You're not alone: Michelena once wrote that until his father (I think) drew his
attention to the different pronunciation of Basque s/z (orthographic), he
hadn't noticed it himself.

[MCV]
>In that sense, it's not unlikely that the current distribution of
>apical and laminal /s/ *can* be projected "way back into the
>past".  Unlike other phoneme substitutions, this is one that
>might have gone completely unnoticed, in say the Roman era,
>without any purist pressure whatsoever to replace it with "real",
>laminal, Latin /s/.

>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv at wxs.nl

[Ed]

The historic spelling systems may cloud it somewhat, but Aquitanian and
Medieval Basque seem to indicate that at least in this case the apical/laminal
distinction can be projected 'way back'.  And Iberian, that seems to share some
characteristics with Basque, undoubtedly had two sibilants and two rhotics in
its semi-sillabary 'alphabet', just like Basque and even Castilian (Z/C-theta
is treated as a sibilant in Peninsular Spanish), even though the values may
have been different or have shifted.

In my opinion, the real problem arises when one jumps from one phyllum or
branch of it to another one, while within the same language or closely knit
family there is only a shift to be expected, and possibly a breakdown of a
distinction.  When originally differing lects converge into one language,
anything may happen, but almost never a further differenciation of phonemes.

Ed.

Dr. Ir. Eduard Selleslagh edsel at glo.be
B-9120 Haasdonk
Belgium