Basque <ibili>

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk (Larry Trask) wrote:

>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal writes:

>> Given Mitxelena's reconstruction of "fortis" consonants and your
>> interpretation of them as geminates, wouldn't it be preferrable
>> to derive:

>>  gurdi + bil > gurdbil > gurbbil > gurpil
>>  ogi   + bil > ogbil   > obbil   > opil    ?

>I formerly favored this view myself, and I would very much like to favor
>it now.  Unfortunately, I can't, because the evidence is against it.

>One piece in particular.  The Basque word <errepide> 'highway' is a
>transparent compound of <errege> 'king' and <bide> 'road'.  The final /e/
>of the first element is lost regularly.  The analysis suggested above
>would require *<errege-bide> --> *<erreg-bide> --> *<errebbide> -->
><errepide>.  But the word is explicitly recorded in the medieval (early
>12th-century) Fuero General of Navarra as <erret bide>:

>Libro III, tit. VII, cap. IV, p. 53:

>	"...en logares en la cayll, que dize el bascongado erret bide."

>This in fact is just one of several attestations of the form <erret(-)>, but
>it is the clearest one.  And this, to my mind, is enough to settle the
>matter.  Much as I might prefer the other analysis, the facts point clearly
>to a change of the first plosive ina plosive cluster to */t/.

It's good evidence (esp. in view of beg(i) + ile > bet-ile), but
maybe I'm too used to Catalan orthography to consider it decisive
(-t- is used as a device to write geminated consonants, with or
without historical justifaction: <setmana> /semmana/ "week",
<ametlla> /amel^l^a/ "almond", <-atge> /-addZe/, <atlota> or
<al.lota> "girl (Mall.)" (<*arlota).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl