Basque butterflies again

[roslyn frank]

At 02:37 PM 1/19/00 +0000, Larry Trask wrote:

[big snip]

[LT]
>And, of course, native Basque lexical items with the slightest
>claim to antiquity never begin with /p/ (the ancient Basques apparently
>couldn't pronounce initial /p-/)

[RF]
Just for the record, I'd mention that this is Larry Trask's position, one
that he has discussed on other occasions. However it is not the only
position. Indeed, for a rather different rendition of phonological events I
would suggest taking a look at Jose Ignacio Hualde's article "Pre-Basque
Plosives" forthcoming in a volume edited by Jon Franco, Alazne Landa and
Juan Martin, _Grammatical Analyses in Basque and Romance Linguistics_ John
Benjamins, Vol. 187 of the series Current Issue in Linguistic Theory. Since
I understand that Larry read an earlier version of that article, I'm
certain that he's familiar with the evidence. Given the complexity of the
issue, I would only state that based on my reading of Hualde's data, the
fact a word appears in modern Basque with an initial /p/ would not in and
of itself argue for or against its "antiquity".  And by saying this I don't
mean to imply that I'm taking any particular position on the antiquity of
the examples found in the current discussion.

[snip]

[LT]
>A few further comments.  The word <bitxi> 'pretty', 'pretty little thing',
>'ornament', 'jewel', apparently present in the large group represented by
><bitxilota>, is of uncertain origin but is often suspected of being a
>palatalized form of <bizi> 'alive', 'living'.  The suggested semantic
>development is 'living' > 'moving' > 'flashing', 'sparkling', > 'pretty',
>'jewel', or something similar.

>So, as Ed suggests, <bizi> is very likely the *ultimate* source of the first
>element, but it cannot be the *direct* source.

[RF]
A few additional comments on this item. I would suggest that the
development suggested above

>'living' > 'moving' > 'flashing', 'sparkling', > 'pretty',
>'jewel', or something similar.

is probably essentially correct. For example, one should note that the term
<bizi> is used as an adjective to mean "lively, agile' (not just "living")
and this has a palatalized diminutive form in French Basque dialects in
<bixi> which Llande translates as: "un peu vif, un peu piquant; vivement,
prestement" while he gives the meaning of <bitxi> as "original; drole" and
in composition as "singularite" while the verb <bitxitu> is rendered as
"devenir original", these meanings being essentially the same as the ones
given by Azkue in his dictionary. The words <bitz> and <pitz> (both listed
in Llande) form verbs, i.e., <biztu> and <piztu>) with the characteristic
reduction of the <-tz-> to <-z>, and carry the verbal meanings of
"resusciter; allumer, ranimer, germer, raciner". They form part of the
semantic field of <bizi>. Llande also lists <pitxi> and gives its meaning
as "joli" but in the same entry he adds the comment "(voc. puer.)".

I would note that there are other words based on the same root-stem that
mean "small, tiny", e.g., <pixka < *pi(t)x(i)-ka> "little, little bit" and
<pixki/pixkin> from < pixka-kin> "little sticks of wood as well as others
in <pittin> where there  <-tx-> appears to have been replaced with a
palatalized /tt/. The latter term is used to refer not just to "little,
tiny" in general but also to one's "little finger". Again the replacement
in question is not unusual in Basque, e.g. <txiki> "little" with
palatalization turns into <ttipi>.

In summary, it would appear that the development of the term <bitxi/pitxi>
could be traced back ultimately to <bizi>, as both Larry and Ed agree, and
that it may well have been a diminutive/affective variant of <bizi> that
gave rise initially to <bixi> and that line of development produced a
meaning chain that ultimately ended up as a polysemous term whose meanings
included that of "jewel", i.e., something small and pretty. That then leads
us in another direction and to other questions: what relationship should be
proposed for the following items based on the following facts.

It is alleged the Breton term <bixou> (defined as "anneau") is the
etymolgical source for Fr. <bijou>, at least according to my Petite
Larousse (note that Buck gives a different version). The Larousse
dictionary defines <bijou> as "object de parure, d'un matiere au d'un
travail precieux, fig. chose admirable, elegante et d'un petitesse
relative". If one were to relate the two data sets, the data enountered in
the Basque semantic field would suggest that the meanings recorded in
Breton and French, if they are assumed to be related to the Basque items,
might be best categorized as representatives of an "extension" of the
term's prototypic meaning, i.e, near the end of the chain of meanings that
lead back to <bixi> and finally  to <bizi>. Are the two data sets related?
I don't know if there are even any articles on the topic or whether there
has been investigations of the Basque semantic field using additional data
from other sources in the same geographical zone, e.g., Provenzal,
Aragonese, Asturian, etc., that should be examined.

Finally, turning to a recent exchange between LT and RM:

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:29:06 +0000

Rick Mc Callister writes:

[on the Basque 'butterfly' words in <bitxi->]

>>       Any possible link between <bitxi> and Spanish <bicho> "bug,
>>  critter, varmint" and also various slang meanings

[LT]
>Doubt it.  Basque <bitxi> means 'pretty', 'pretty little thing', 'ornament',
>'jewel'.  It has no connection with bugs or any other critters anywhere except
>in the 'butterfly' words cited.  And let's face it: as bugs go,
>butterflies are exceptionally pretty.

[RF]
However, before I respond to the comment by LT above, I'd like to review a
short section from his extensive and well researched material on Basque
"butterflies" that he put together and sent to the list on Dec. 13.

[LT]
>Where the information is available, I have listed the dialects for which a
>given form is recorded and its date of first attestation, but this
>information is often not available. The dialects cited, roughly from west
>to east, are as follows:

>B: Bizkaian
>Sout: Southern (extinct; recorded in 16th-century Alava)
>G: Gipuzkoan
>HN: High Navarrese
>L: Lapurdian LN:
>Low Navarrese
>Z: Zuberoan

>I have grouped the forms into nine classes, of which the first is subdivided.

>Group 1a.
>bitxilote (B)
>bitxileta pitxilote (B)
>pitxoleta (B)
>pitxeleta (B)
>pitxilota (B)

>These appear to be based on <bitxi>, western variant <pitxi>, 'pretty little
>thing', 'ornament', 'jewel', an item well attested everywhere as an
>independent word (though in varying senses), and also very frequent as a first
>element in expressive and nursery formations. The final element is entirely
>obscure, and very likely a meaningless expressive element.

>(See also Alavese Spanish <bichilota>. Alava was Basque-speaking until
>recently, and the local Spanish has, or until recently had, a number of loans
>from Basque.)

>Group 1b.
>mitxeleta (B, G) (1745)
>mitxilote (B)
>mitxoleta mitxelot (B)
>(and many more variants)

************************
[RF]
I would note that in addition to its meaning of "butterfly", Azkue (I:173)
lists <pitxilote> (B) with the meaning of "daisy" ("margarita de los
prados") while <pitxoleta> refers simultaneously to the following three
objects: a butterfly, a daisy and a poppy.

In what are now non-Basque speaking zones of Navarre we find evidence for
the prior existence in the Basque of the zone for <mitxingorri>
(<*bitxi/pitxi(n)-gorri> from <gorri> "red"). Jose Maria Iribarren (1984)
records this expression, spelling it as <michingorri> and listing its
meaning as "poppy". The compound might be glossed as "pretty little red
thing".

Returning now to the discussion concerning the possible relationship
between the Basque and Spanish (Castilian) items. First we should note that
it is well known that Moliner (1966:I, 373) and others (I don't have
Corominas at hand) derive <bicho> from Vulgar Latin <bestius> and Clas.
Lat. <bestia>. Yet there does seem to be room to question whether the
Basque term <bitxi/pitxi> might not have played some role also, in the
development of the Romance item. Indeed, when I learned Spanish, my
understanding of <bicho> was that it referred to any sort of (small)
flying/creeping insect. It was used by metaphoric (ironic) extension, in my
opinion, to apply to large animals, e.g., a horse or cow. Again, I
emphasize that that was the way that I learned the expression from those
around me.

Furthermore, the extension of a word meaning "butterfly" to a class of
"flying insects" or to some other kind of flying objects that look like
more or less like butterflies would not be unusual, particularly if
speakers were no longer able to disambiguate the components of the compound
in question.

Morever, there is evidence from Bearn, a zone where Basque was spoken
previously, that is of interest: "<BICHOU>, masc. 1) papillote: 'Si manque
de bichous, nou manque pas de toupet.' S'il manque de papillotes, il ne
manque pas de toupet. 2) BICHOUS, morceaux de papier dont on garnit les
cotes et la queue de d'un cerf-volant (jouet d'enfant) pour qu'il se
maintienne droit lorsqu'il est enleve par le vent: 'Lous cerpentz de
cerc...per defaut de bichous enta ha l'aploumb...hen la capihoune.' Les
cerfs-volants, faute de morceaux de papier (en forme de papillotes) pour
faire l'aplomb (pour maintenir d'aplomb), font la cabriole" (Lespy et
Raymond, _Dictionnaire bearnais ancien et moderne_  [1887] 1970: 106,
source: "Lettres d'Orthez, dans le journal _Le Mercure d'Orthez_)). For
those who might not be familiar with the term <cerf-volant> in French, I
offer the following definition: "<cerf-volant>: 1) nom vulgaire du 'lucane
male', insect coleoptere a mandibules enormes (long: jusqu'a 8 cm.) [in
English we are talking about a 'stag beedle' of the family Lucanidae,
having long, powerful, antlerlike mandibules AHD]; 2) jouet d'enfant,
compose d'une carcasse legere sur laquelle on tend un papier fort ou une
etoffe, et que l'on fait voler" (Petit Larousse 1963:182). In this case,
the <bichous> are the pieces/strips of cloth that are tied, giving the
appearance of butterflies, to the cord forming the tail of the kite.

It strikes me that someone familiar with French, but not Basque, would
assume that <bichou> in the example above, was nothing more than a somewhat
odd and/or localized use of the French word <bijou>. On the other hand, a
careful reading of the information found in the semantic field of the
Bearnese item <bichou> suggests a different interpretation.

Finally, based on the implications of the data sets discussed above, I'm
not convinced that LT's closing remark, cited below, fully reflects the
semantic realities (and complexities) of the situation:

[LT]
>I therefore conclude that Lloyd's efforts at linking some of the Basque words
>to words in other languages (and also to one another) are without foundation.
>The Basque 'butterfly' words are numerous and severely localized; they conform
>strongly to observed patterns for coining expressive formations; and they can
>scarcely be of any antiquity.

Ondo ibili,
Roz Frank