As well as embedding the book here (which will be of limited use to most of my readers, who do not speak any Basque) I'll translate the index so you can get an idea of what the book is about. Hopefully it will cause enough interest to be translated to English, Spanish and maybe other languages eventually.
Even for those who do not speak any Basque, the many illustrations may be informative. The first chapters, for example, have some historical and linguistic maps not easy to find elsewhere: a map of the Roman conquest of the Basque Country and Aquitaine in page 11 or a quite striking map of Basque-sounding toponyms in the area of the other Veleia, the one of Italy (Ligurian territory) in page 16.
The e-book: Iruña-Veleiako euskarazko grafitoak (The grafitti of Iruña-Veleia) by Juan Mari Elexpuru (philologist):
It is also available in PDF format.
Index (translated):
Prologue
1. The history and histories of Iruña-Veleia
1.1. On the Romans' conquest
1.2. Tribes or ethnicities
1.3. On the name Iruña-Veleia
1.4. The place
1.5. The city
1.6. The archaeological site
1.7. The finding of the exceptional graffiti
1.8. The materials
1.9. The commission of experts
1.10. The Chartered Government of Araba declares the findings as false and closes the site
1.11. The reports and pictures are published
1.12. The debate heats up
1.13. The trial at the tribunals
1.14. The Chartered Government gives the site to the University of the Basque Country
1.15. The anniversary of the expulsion of Lurmen and the closure of the site (November 19th 2011)
1.16. Eliseo Gil might be a falsifier!
2. The shards with Basque inscriptions
2.1. How many and where
2.2. Photos and transcriptions
2.3. The contents
2.4. The lexicon of the texts
3. The echoes of the Lord's Prayer
4. On the late Vasconization
4.1. Basque words in Roman inscriptions
4.2. Basque dialects
4.3. Toponymy
4.4. Last comment
5. Reply to the reports of Lakarra and Gorrotxategi
5.1. Context
5.2. Contra facta non valent argumenta
5.3. The article
The San Millán Regula (1025)
The Liria cup (IV century BC)
The Ibarra from Plasenzuela (Cáceres) in a Roman slab (II century AD)
Illuna and Tichia in an Iruña-Veleia neighborhood
Toponyms that end in -oña
Some other tracks
Some comments on Basque articles
5.4. Phonetics and graphy
Aspiration (<h>)
T = TS and TZ
S and Z
K and QV (qu)
5.5 Lexicon
Arapa, arosa, lagun, polita, urdin, gori
5.6. Gamed words
5.7. Pronouns and possessives
neu, geu, gure, zure, zeu, zutan
5.8. Ergative
5.9. Archaisms and hapaxes
5.10. The consequences
5.11. On the last codas of Lakarra and on the presumed falsifiers
5.12. Visceral talk
6. The reports that support authenticity
The viewpoint of Koenraad van Driesche
7. On the human damages
Iruña-Veleia: the history of a nightmare
8. The manifesto for the clarification of the Iruña-Veleia affair
1. The history and histories of Iruña-Veleia
1.1. On the Romans' conquest
1.2. Tribes or ethnicities
1.3. On the name Iruña-Veleia
1.4. The place
1.5. The city
1.6. The archaeological site
1.7. The finding of the exceptional graffiti
1.8. The materials
1.9. The commission of experts
1.10. The Chartered Government of Araba declares the findings as false and closes the site
1.11. The reports and pictures are published
1.12. The debate heats up
1.13. The trial at the tribunals
1.14. The Chartered Government gives the site to the University of the Basque Country
1.15. The anniversary of the expulsion of Lurmen and the closure of the site (November 19th 2011)
1.16. Eliseo Gil might be a falsifier!
2. The shards with Basque inscriptions
2.1. How many and where
2.2. Photos and transcriptions
2.3. The contents
2.4. The lexicon of the texts
3. The echoes of the Lord's Prayer
4. On the late Vasconization
4.1. Basque words in Roman inscriptions
4.2. Basque dialects
4.3. Toponymy
4.4. Last comment
5. Reply to the reports of Lakarra and Gorrotxategi
5.1. Context
5.2. Contra facta non valent argumenta
5.3. The article
The San Millán Regula (1025)
The Liria cup (IV century BC)
The Ibarra from Plasenzuela (Cáceres) in a Roman slab (II century AD)
Illuna and Tichia in an Iruña-Veleia neighborhood
Toponyms that end in -oña
Some other tracks
Some comments on Basque articles
5.4. Phonetics and graphy
Aspiration (<h>)
T = TS and TZ
S and Z
K and QV (qu)
5.5 Lexicon
Arapa, arosa, lagun, polita, urdin, gori
5.6. Gamed words
5.7. Pronouns and possessives
neu, geu, gure, zure, zeu, zutan
5.8. Ergative
5.9. Archaisms and hapaxes
5.10. The consequences
5.11. On the last codas of Lakarra and on the presumed falsifiers
5.12. Visceral talk
6. The reports that support authenticity
The viewpoint of Koenraad van Driesche
7. On the human damages
Iruña-Veleia: the history of a nightmare
8. The manifesto for the clarification of the Iruña-Veleia affair
____________________________________________________
Further information in English:
In other languages:
- SOS Iruña-Veleia [es/eu]
- Ostraka euskalduna blog [eu]
- Iruña-Veleia gezurra ala egia? blog [eu]
Update (Jul 14): Iruña-Oka municipality publishes online the most complete list of photographs of the exceptional graffiti. It is an important step towards an official recognition of the findings.
Another online archive has been available at Elexpuru's blog (Flickr archive) for some time now.
The use of the locative zutan 'in the heavens' is particularly interesting, because it implies the word zut (today 'on foot, upright') was used in old Basque for 'sky, heaven', which in modern Basque is zeru, a Romance loanword.
ReplyDeleteWe do not know exactly what the author meant. The text reads, if I recall correctlt, "gure ata zutan" (our father standing) and my be a misunderstanding of what the Prayer's Lord meant or even an totally unrelated intent.
ReplyDeleteIt can also be seen as an apocope of zerutan (common in today's colloquial speech: "zeutan", "zutan"), because, you know, Basques often speak very fast with small mouths.
It's an open issue, I guess.
The text reads, if I recall correctly, "gure ata zutan" (our father standing) and may be a misunderstanding of what the Prayer's Lord meant or even an totally unrelated intent.
ReplyDeleteThis is unlikely, because the Prayer's Lord is a good example of a formulaic text to be repeated over and over.
It can also be seen as an apocope of zerutan (common in today's colloquial speech: "zeutan", "zutan"), because, you know, Basques often speak very fast with small mouths.
LOL. This might be so in modern Basque, but not at that time. I also remind you today's Basque zeru is a Romance loanword.
This example illustrates the danger of blindly using modern Basque to translate ancient texts.
I must scold you (because you should know better): zeru is not from any Romance but from Latin itself (vulgar Latin??): coelum > zeru.
ReplyDeleteNo question about this, notably because no Romance in the area (except Gascon maybe) ends words in -u(m/s). Only Basque retains those archaisms (as in liburu) because they are genuine direct Latin loans.
Many mistakes in Latin transcriptions:
ReplyDeletePage 45: In nomine pat[ther], actually: In nomine pat[ris]
Page 83: Qui est in caelis, actually: Qui es in caelis
Page 104: h(ic) s(itus) s(epultus) e(st), actually: h(oc) s(ito)…
Page 106: “servos” for “servus” is in the original, but “o” is little, demonstrating some uncertainty in the pronunciation. ”illUNA”: it seems that “ill” has been added later. “UNA SOCRA” does mean “with the mother-in-law”, and “ill” seems an “illa” (adjective demonstrative ablative feminine singular) which was going to became the article.
Uste dut hilarrietako Ibarra eta Illuna izen artikuludunak eta toponimiak eta antroponimiak eskaintzen dituen aztarnak nahiko zantzu sendoak direla erromatarren garaian artikulua bazela pentsatzeko (page 128)
If you were so kind to translate…
I must scold you (because you should know better): zeru is not from any Romance but from Latin itself (vulgar Latin??): coelum > zeru.
ReplyDeleteReally? Then why didn't keep the velar stop as in other words: e.g. cella- > gela?
No question about this, notably because no Romance in the area (except Gascon maybe) ends words in -u(m/s).
Certainly no Gascon, but there's evidence of a Romance/Basque bilinguism in some areas of the Basque country. For example, Latin fagetu- gave the Romance toponym Faido (Araba), but not far from there there's also Payueta, which shows a Basque adaptation of Romance *fayu 'beech' (cfr. Aragonese fayo)
The form zutan is also singular: 'in heaven', not plural.
"Many mistakes in Latin transcriptions"...
ReplyDeleteIt's been argued that they are Vulgar Latin, already transitional towards Romance. There is a Vulgar Latin expert's report somewhere supporting this.
”illUNA”: it seems that “ill” has been added later. “UNA SOCRA” does mean “with the mother-in-law”, and “ill” seems an “illa” (adjective demonstrative ablative feminine singular) which was going to became the article.
That is a very interesting idea. Sadly I am not qualified to discuss it. You may want to contact the author (a linguist himself) at his blog. He will surely understand English or Italian (which is so close to Spanish).
"If you were so kind to translate…"
Ok (it's complicated because it has lots of subordinate sentences in one):
"I think that the names with article Ibarra and Illuna and toponymy and anthroponymy offer to think that there was an article in Roman times that has left some quite firm traces".
A bit uncertain at some words but this seems to be it. He seems to be talking of the Basque basic "article" -a (intransitive subject's or transitive DO's declension or suffix).
"Then why didn't keep the velar stop as in other words: e.g. cella- > gela?"
ReplyDeletece- is different from coe-
Also one may have mutated in one place and one in another... for different reasons, etc.
That gela comes from cella is plausible but I'm not sure if correct. It could well be that cella comes from gela (or a similar Liguarian word) as well.
If it happened as you say, gela implies a very early loan because ce- was still pronounced /ke/ and not yet with smooth "c" (various sounds). Instead zeru seems to imply already a vulgarization of Latin, which makes sense if it was imported in a Christian context (i.e. late empire). Gela instead would have been borrowed early in the conquest process, maybe in the aftermath of the II Punic war already.
That is several centuries of difference. We cannot imagine Latin as a monolithic language, specially not in the late Empire.
"a Basque adaptation of Romance *fayu 'beech'"
ReplyDeleteThere is Basque 'pago' (beech) which may indeed be of Roman origin... though I always wonder why would Basques need to borrow a word for their most common tree. If a true borrowing, ten it is highly anomalous because it would have to be pagu (< phagus) but pagu only exists as "strong, firm", not as the tree.
So I always suspect this is indeed one of pre-IE loanwords into Western Indoeuropean, because the PIE steppe zone is not wealthy in beeches, or almost any other deciduous trees. These words must have a non-IE origin.
But the beech/phagus/pago case is a very confusing matter, so I'll leave it at this point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"The form zutan is also singular: 'in heaven', not plural".
ReplyDelete'Zutan' I said before it could mean standing but I was mistaken, that's 'zutik'.
'Zutan' (if not 'z(er)utan') must mean on/in/at you. That's the most straightforward translation. And, while I have not read the book yet, I understand that's what Elexpuru means when he puts this form at the end of a list of pronouns.
I think having understood through the Basque text and other languages easier for me (all the others) that there are some doubts about the authenticity of these findings, but, if my hypothesis is right, it would be a point in favour of its authenticity.
ReplyDeleteWe know that in Sicilian (my wife’s dialect) they say “đđoku” for “there”, from Vulgar Latin “illo locu” with the cacuminal sound. “illuna” could be a similar formation from “illa una” and would demonstrate its authenticity.
Of course I have written “hoc sito”, but Classic Latin would be “hoc situ”, and a Locativ without “in”, even though for a circumscribed place, isn’t known in Classical use.
a Basque adaptation of Romance *fayu 'beech'"
ReplyDeleteThere is Basque 'pago' (beech) which may indeed be of Roman origin...
Yes, Basque pago is from Romance fago.
There're two different words for 'beech' in Romance, one derived from the adjective (materia) fagea- 'beech wood' > Spanish haya, masculinized in Aragonese fayo, Catalan faig, and another derived from fagu- 'beech' > Aragonese fago, fau.
These toponyms give us a precious information. For example, whileFaido 'beech plantation' is derived from Latin fagetu-, this noun isn't found in Spanish or Aragonese, so it must represent the autochtonous Romance of the area. Also Payueta represents the Basque adaptation of the word *fayu or fayo like the one found in Aragonese.
'Zutan' (if not 'z(er)utan') must mean on/in/at you. That's the most straightforward translation.
This might be correct in MODERN Basque, but not necessarily in an older form of the language. These "translations" don't work at all. Of course, the situation is even worse if we try to "translate" Iberian that way.
So I always suspect this is indeed one of pre-IE loanwords into Western Indoeuropean, because the PIE steppe zone is not wealthy in beeches, or almost any other deciduous trees. These words must have a non-IE origin.
Yes, IMHO this is derived from a Vasco-Caucasian root. Other names of trees and fruits found in IE languages have also this origin. Perhaps one of these days I'll publish something in my blog.
That gela comes from cella is plausible but I'm not sure if correct. It could well be that cella comes from gela (or a similar Liguarian word) as well.
I think this is out of the question.
What about geldi(-tu), to stay, to stop? A room is a place where you stay. Far fetched? Maybe but both words begin the same way and have very related meanings.
ReplyDeleteThe imperative form of gelditu is geldi but also gel.
We also have odd relations like giltza (key).
So I cannot categorically lean myself in either direction. I understand that in doubt the Latin option is the easy one, much more likely to give you applause than criticism but for that very reason I consider it suspicious of conformism, of lack of critical thought.
Unlike with pago/fagus, in this case one can argue that pre-Roman Basques did not know the concept of room. Actually this would be untrue (La Hoya homes had rooms) but maybe was not common enough, allowing for Latin to have an impact here as with book or heaven.
For me it is an open matter.
I understand that in doubt the Latin option is the easy one
ReplyDeleteIMHO there's no room for doubt, as the Latin and Basque agree perfectly in form and meaning.
Unlike with pago/fagus, in this case one can argue that pre-Roman Basques did not know the concept of room.
This is a different issue. Although old Basque probably a word for 'beech', it was replaced by Romance (not Latin!) fago. This means there was a Romance/Basque bilinguism in the Basque country, and for whatever reason the Romance form was adopted.
Also cella isn't simply a room, but a storage room. And contrarily to what you think (your vision is too simplistic), the same concept can be expressed with more than one word. Borrowings don't need always to be justified as new "inventions", but mainly because of the prestige of the people who introduced the word.
There is room for doubt because it is possible that the loan happened from Vasconic to Latin to begin with. Only if you can track cella to PIE, then this doubt would disappear.
ReplyDeleteA search in Starostin's database only finds another cognate group within IE for cella: Germanic "hall" and the like (PG: *xallō). The chances of this word having a pre-IE origin are huge therefore.
"Also cella isn't simply a room, but a storage room".
Maybe. The meanings of Wikitionary are: "a small room, a hut, barn, granary" and also "the part of a temple where the image of a god stood; altar, sanctuary, shrine". This is quite different from the Basque meaning of 'gela', which is just 'room' in general.
A "cella" (by its Latin meaning) could be an "ola" (workshop) or better an 'etxabe(-ko) ola' (workshop under the house) (> Sp. "chabola": slum-hut), in its mundane meaning.
This difference between Basque and Latin meanings reinforces the idea that the word may have danced between languages in the region and Latin being only one destination and not necessarily the origin.
"Borrowings don't need always to be justified as new "inventions", but mainly because of the prestige of the people who introduced the word".
I think it's more about the bilingual contact zones, which randomly let some words pass, while others never do. It may all be about a word's sonority or ease of pronunciation... But a key issue is that native speakers easily forget the ancestral word, which is easier to happen with unusual or novel concepts (book, heaven) and really hard with quotidian objects (beech, room).
It can happen but it implies a very strong influence by the intruding language and a lot of luck.
In other words: I'm proposing a competing hypothesis in which gela (room) derivates from the same proto-Vasconic root *gel- as geldi(tu), infiltrating from this substrate some of the Western IE dialects eventually evolving into Germanic and Latin.
ReplyDeleteActually Starostin's proposed PIE (haha! a PIE root from only Latin and Germanic!) root is *k(')eln-, which is notably similar to my proposed Vasconic root *gel-
There is room for doubt because it is possible that the loan happened from Vasconic to Latin to begin with.
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. There can be absolutely no doubt the Basque word was borrowed from Latin.
This difference between Basque and Latin meanings reinforces the idea that the word may have danced between languages in the region and Latin being only one destination and not necessarily the origin.
I remind you that Latin homeland is far away the Basque country. However, both the Latin and Germanic words could have been borrowed from Etruscan.
In other words: I'm proposing a competing hypothesis in which gela (room) derivates from the same proto-Vasconic root *gel- as geldi(tu), infiltrating from this substrate some of the Western IE dialects eventually evolving into Germanic and Latin.
Not really, because Basque *geldi- is actually from the same suffixed PIE root *kel(h1)-t- we find in Germanic *xálɵan-/*xaldaán- 'to hold, to lift' http://newstar.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=/data/ie/germet&text_number=++1033&root=config
Actually Starostin's proposed PIE (haha! a PIE root from only Latin and Germanic!) root is *k(')eln-
This is another root *k´el- 'to cover, to conceal', which is linked to Germanic *xaljō- 'the Underworld' and Etruscan calu- 'Hades'.
"I remind you that Latin homeland is far away the Basque country".
ReplyDeleteBut close to other areas of Basque toponimy, either in Italy or in the presumable proto-Italic homeland of the Upper Danube.
"However, both the Latin and Germanic words could have been borrowed from Etruscan".
I remind you that the Tyrsenian homeland is far away from Italy... in Anatolia most probably. While Etruscans and Italics arrived to Italy about the same time surely, it is impossible that Etruscan could have influenced proto-Germanic.
"because Basque *geldi- is actually from the same suffixed PIE root *kel(h1)-t- we find in Germanic *xálɵan-/*xaldaán- 'to hold, to lift".
To lift rather than hold in all other IE variants. Surely not.
Also to stop, to stay put, only has the same meaning as to hold in a figurative or secondary meaning of this English verb, because it normally means to grab, to keep in one's hands or arms, which is where it has the same meaning as to lift.
Not a valid etymology as soon as you think about it a bit.
"This is another root *k´el-"...
No I got "*k(')eln-" when searching for Lat. cella (with all the IE fields activated, so I miss no detail).
I have no idea why he put that /n/ in *k(')eln-, neither the Germanic nor the Latin words have any /n/ anywhere, so I think it's in excess and *kel- (or Vasconic *gel-) is actually the true root.
But close to other areas of Basque toponimy,
ReplyDeleteNot Basque but "Vasconic". Notice the use of quotation marks to express my incredulity.
While Etruscans and Italics arrived to Italy about the same time surely
I don't think so.
it is impossible that Etruscan could have influenced proto-Germanic.
Not so impossible, because there's evidence of contacts across the Alpine Area in the Iron Age.
Also to stop, to stay put, only has the same meaning as to hold in a figurative or secondary meaning of this English verb, because it normally means to grab, to keep in one's hands or arms, which is where it has the same meaning as to lift. Not a valid etymology as soon as you think about it a bit.
LOL. Have you been ever arrested? In order to stop somebody, you have to hold him/she. It's a perfectly valid etymology (notice that *k- rgularly became g- in Basque).
No I got "*k(')eln-" when searching for Lat. cella (with all the IE fields activated, so I miss no detail).
I'm afraid Nikolayev's dictionary isn't the only etymological source.
have no idea why he put that /n/ in *k(')eln-, neither the Germanic nor the Latin words have any /n/ anywhere,so I think it's in excess
He derived these words by adding a -n- suffix to the root *k´el-, so *kel-na would have given cella. Although this is legitimate (other words have this suffix), by no means it's sure (e.g. Mallory-Adams prefer *k´el-s- instead).
*kel- (or Vasconic *gel-) is actually the true root.
There's no such Vasconic root **gel- nor it's related to cella.
"we find in Germanic *xálɵan-/*xaldaán- 'to hold, to lift'"
ReplyDeleteto lift seems to be a wrong translation. The correct one IMO is to carry, which is a derivative but closer to to hold. Closer to the original Germanic is today's halten in German. The meaning to stop (Halt!) is derivative, as in "now hold on, for a moment!").
Sometimes, a word of the same origin can migrate into a language at different times. For example, Northern European houses had no cellars (due to construction and high water tables), but monks used them in their cloisters. So, Germ. Keller arrived late from Latin (engl. cellar; also cell / Germ. Zelle) <-- Lat. cellarium (storage room, later often meant to be underground) <-- Lat. cella. Note that all English forms and the German Zelle use the later soft "c".
On the other hand, Germ. Halle and Saal are of old PIE origin from the same root.
As to beech (Germ. Buche, see also bush/Busch), that tree has extremely dense stands from Germany to the Carpathians and Ukraine (in fact, just recently chosen as UNESCO World Heritage sites).
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1133
That may hint at the origin of the word.
"I don't think so".
ReplyDeleteItalics arrived to NE Italy either within the Terramare culture. Later they moved southwards in the 7th century BCE.
Etruscans also entered the area, from the Aegean most likely, in that same period. The Villanova culture begins c. 1300 BCE and that is the moment when we can begin talking of Etruscans. Genetic studies seem to confirm that the Etruscan aristocracy were almost like modern Turks and that even to some extent modern Tuscans are closer to the Aegean/West Asian genetics than other Italians.
"Not so impossible, because there's evidence of contacts across the Alpine Area in the Iron Age".
The origin of Germanic is generally (very much consensually) accepted to be Scandinavia and maybe the Northern parts of Continental Europe. Hence it is impossible that Etruscan and Germanic influenced each other without any mediation (and even with mediation it is most difficult).
"In order to stop somebody, you have to hold him/she. It's a perfectly valid etymology"...
It is not. It is very forced, nonsensical when you look at it with some attention.
And this example of arrest is total nonsense again: you don't stop a horse holding it, you don't stop yourself holding your body... you actually don't stop people by holding them most of the time: a verbal or visual sign is more than enough.
You're pushing things to the amateurish side of things and you should not with that flamboyant academic title you have.
"(notice that *k- rgularly became g- in Basque)"
I thought it regularly became *h- I am even surprised that there is any /k/ left at all in modern Basque with so many things our second favorite consonant (after R) has to transform into "regularly".
Luckily normal people speak normal and not as linguists think they do. Luckily Basque still has LOTS of Ks.
"I'm afraid Nikolayev's dictionary isn't the only etymological source".
That Starostin's database was your recommendation, a very insistent one, a few days ago. I'm doing what you told me to do... nothing else.
"There's no such Vasconic root **gel- nor it's related to cella".
I'm here proposing the opposite: that there is a Vasconic root *gel- from which gela and geldi(tu) (at least) meaning stay, stop or location. And that from gela or *gel- come Germanic hall and Latin cella, which are obviously not IE words but Western aboriginal substrate loans.
You can repeat all you want that what I say "is not" but this is like the witches: we are, we are not... we are and we are a lot.
@ Octavià
ReplyDelete“He derived these words by adding a -n- suffix to the root *k´el-, so *kel-na would have given cella. Although this is legitimate (other words have this suffix), by no means it's sure (e.g. Mallory-Adams prefer *k´el-s- instead)”.
But if *k’elsa would have given Latin “cella” and NE (New English, then Germanic) “hall”, why *kòlsos has given Latin “collus but OHG (Old High German) “hals”? The suffix –n could explain better Latin, but if we link from *k’el- also Greek καλῑᾱ’ and Skrr śâla-, probably we should look for another explication. Also the vowel -a- of Greek should be explained.
Italics arrived to NE Italy either within the Terramare culture. Later they moved southwards in the 7th century BCE.
ReplyDeleteEvidence?
Etruscans also entered the area, from the Aegean most likely, in that same period. The Villanova culture begins c. 1300 BCE and that is the moment when we can begin talking of Etruscans.
IMHO, Etruscan came later to Italy. Interestingly, Etruscan φersi- 'iron' was borrowed from Italic *ferso- > Latin ferrum.
The origin of Germanic is generally (very much consensually) accepted to be Scandinavia
and maybe the Northern parts of Continental Europe.
References?
Hence it is impossible that Etruscan and Germanic influenced each other without any mediation (and even with mediation it is most difficult).
It's their location and trade networks in the Iron Age what really matters.
Yes, you hold it by the reins.
you don't stop yourself holding your body
Obviously, nobody can "hold" himself.
you actually don't stop people by holding them most of the time: a verbal or visual sign is more than enough
We're speaking of physical contact "sports" like rugby. Police arrests are only one of these "games".
You're pushing things to the amateurish side of things and you should not with that flamboyant academic title you have.
You're wrong on both sides, becasue I'm not an academical linguist and my work isn't "amateurish", but yours.
"(notice that *k- regularly became g- in Basque)"
This can be seen in castellu- > gaztelu, cella > gela and many other words.
I thought it regularly became *h-
This actually happened with strong *k:- in native proto-Basque words.
I am even surprised that there is any /k/ left at all in modern Basque with so many things our second favorite consonant (after R) has to transform into "regularly".
Because initial k- in modern Basque has another origin. Most of these words are recent loanwords from Romance and/or other extinct languages.
'm here proposing the opposite: that there is a Vasconic root *gel- from which gela and geldi(tu) (at least) meaning stay, stop or location. And that from gela or *gel- come Germanic hall and Latin cella, which are obviously not IE words but Western aboriginal substrate loans.
Sorry, but the actual evidence contradicts you. For me, this discussion is over.
"but if we link from *k’el- also Greek καλῑᾱ’ and Skrr śâla-"
ReplyDeleteWhat are these two words (and what is "Skrr").
Is thsi śâla- the same as 'sala' in Italian and Spanish (hall, living room). Why does Starostin's database ignore this word? Bug or feature? It seems very close to Germanic hall in the form (h<>s only changes, closer than cella).
I should add that in a truly ironic coincidence of history and etymology, the Faguswerk in Alfeld/Germany (one of the first buildings of modern industrial design) was also just included as UNESCO World Heritage site (I have seen the building in person, it is actually quite impressive as a design invention). It was a shoe-last factory and named after the Latin word for beech tree, because that's what shoe lasts are made of...
ReplyDelete"Evidence?"
ReplyDeleteIt's mainstream in the understanding of IE expansion within the Kurgan model (which is the only one that makes any sense).
"Etruscan φersi- 'iron' was borrowed from Italic *ferso- > Latin ferrum".
The etymology of ferrum from *bhres- / *bhers- looks forced. This is not an IE, not even a Western IE word but probably has some other origin.
As Etruscans and Italics met before either used steel ('iron') they probably borrowed the word from the same third source. This source surely was Aegean/Anatolian or otherwise West Asian, simply because it was there where the Iron Age began.
Notice that it's not too different from Basque 'burdin' either. Someone suggested that 'burdin' might be related to Hebrew 'barzel' and Aramaic parzla/parzlo. On the other hand Greek sideros and Armenian érkel don't seem related.
Burdin, barzel, ferrum/ferso and phersi seem all related. I wonder even if it has a Phoenician origin (would make all sense).
"References?"
LOL, search Wikipedia or Google.
"We're speaking of physical contact "sports" like rugby".
No, we are not. Geldi is to stop transitive but specially intransitive (stop oneself). When you say gel! or geldi! it is a "command" (imperative) to stop yourself, your body, your movement. Otherwise it requires more data and grammar and is therefore less primeval and less useful from the linguistic viewpoint.
Specially in its relation with gela (room), it is a clear case of one stopping by and not being violently tackled by some gorilla.
"I'm not an academical linguist"...
I thought you were. You give yourself a varnish as if you were one.
"For me, this discussion is over".
Not that I mind, sincerely.
In German(ic) Halle (very large single-purpose building with both large exterior construction and large interior space) and Saal (large interior room, usually part of a larger building that contains additional rooms and floors) the H and S are interchanged the same as in the many words for salt: Greek hal- (as in halogen, Hallstadt), but Lat. sal, Germ. Salz, Engl. salt.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the original leading sound (denoted *x above) was closer to the "ch" still used in Switzerland and turned "h" in Celtic (same original area, including regions west/southwest of Switzerland, i.e. the originally most SW extent of IE), and traveled to Greece by trade.
BTW, very few people today support a Scandinavian origin of Germanic. All Scandinavian languages have all the characteristic features occurring in a language diaspora. Germanic surely condensed in northern and central Germany and adjacent eastern regions - how far south it originally reached is disputed, but to me it looks like Celtic was only spoken at trading posts along the main rivers (Rhine and Danube) - outside of these "oppida" it may very well have been Germanic all along (i.e., even before Roman times - from the beginning of the the separation of proto-Germanic from IE).
And yes, Italic surely must be that IE which crossed the Alps with cattle/milk farmers from south of the upper Danube.
It's mainstream in the understanding of IE expansion within the Kurgan model (which is the only one that makes any sense).
ReplyDeleteLOL. And you said people should question everyhting.
The etymology of ferrum from *bhres- / *bhers- looks forced. This is not an IE, not even a Western IE word but probably has some other origin.
Yes, that's right. Notice also English brass has the same origin.
As Etruscans and Italics met before either used steel ('iron') they probably borrowed the word from the same third source.
IMHO, Etruscan borrowed it from Italic because Villanovian people were Italic speakers.
This source surely was Aegean/Anatolian or otherwise West Asian, simply because it was there where the Iron Age began.
This might be right, but more data is required.
Notice that it's not too different from Basque 'burdin' either.
Yes, that's right. Notice also Semitic *birt-/*burt- 'metal (artifact)'.
Someone suggested that 'burdin' might be related to Hebrew 'barzel' and Aramaic parzla/parzlo.
This "someone" is our former "friend" Arnaud Fournet. Remember him?
Burdin, barzel, ferrum/ferso and phersi seem all related. I wonder even if it has a Phoenician origin (would make all sense).
To me, it looks like a Vasco-Caucasian Wanderwort.
LOL, search Wikipedia or Google.
Should I remind you the importance of printed sources as opposite to online junk?
"We're speaking of physical contact "sports" like rugby".
No, we are not. Geldi is to stop transitive but specially intransitive (stop oneself).
I wasn't referring to the Basque meaning, but the original one.
Specially in its relation with gela (room),
This relationship only exists in your mind.
I thought you were. You give yourself a varnish as if you were one.
You should be more respectful to other people, specially if they're more knowledgeable than you in a given subject. I'm a civilized person open to discuss whatever ideas, but I'm not of fond of absurd ones.
In German(ic) Halle (very large single-purpose building with both large exterior construction and large interior space) and Saal (large interior room, usually part of a larger building that contains additional rooms and floors) the H and S are interchanged the same as in the many words for salt: Greek hal- (as in halogen, Hallstadt), but Lat. sal, Germ. Salz, Engl. salt.
ReplyDeleteThat's right. This can be explained because both words have a remote Vasco-Caucasian common origin: PNC *q@lV 'house, hut'. In the languages spoken in Central Europe during the Neolithic, the initial uvular evolved to a velar *k- reflected in Latin cella and Germanic *xall-ō-, but also to Latin in-cola 'inhabitant' (wrongly linked by IE-ists to PIE *kWel- 'to turn').
Interestingly, this root is also the origin of French chalet 'cottage', a word from the Swiss Alps, where it designates a mountain refuge.
However, in the area near the Caucasus, it gave an uvular fricative *X- reflected in Kartvelian *xl- 'o dwell, to live' and *sa-xl- 'house'. This fricative was fronted to *s- in PIE, giving *sel- 'dwelling, settlement' > Latin solum, Germanic *sala-.
Perhaps the original leading sound (denoted *x above) was closer to the "ch" still used in Switzerland and turned "h" in Celtic (same original area, including regions west/southwest of Switzerland, i.e. the originally most SW extent of IE), and traveled to Greece by trade.
Not really, as the shift *s- > h- is regular in Greek and part of Celtic.
This fricative was fronted to *s- in PIE, giving *sel- 'dwelling, settlement' > Latin solum, Germanic *sala-.
ReplyDeleteI named this sound shift "Fournet's Law" after the name of my opponent, because he inspired it to me, although he was unable to recognize it.
Maju, you have said many times that I put Italy always at the centre of all, but each of us has his own centres. Nobody would have thought that amongst Indians there are many ferocious nationalists: read something about Indo-European languages and hg. R1a: the most ancient (R1a-M420) is so far only in Europe, also in Italy, and probably the Rhaetian Region is full of them, and nobody knows for certain where IE languages were born.
ReplyDeleteYou always repeat that Etruscans came from Asia Minor. I have said to you many times, and written on many forums, that this isn’t demonstrated. I have broken in pieces all the papers which tried to demonstrate this. Also Barbujani (a radical-chic whom I don’t love, one of the flock of Cavalli-Sforza – Farfugliani and Cavallo Sforzesco in my idiolect -) has written in a paper of his, after having said with his master that Italians don’t exist but they always came from elsewhere, that the link between some Tuscans of today, not all but only the inhabitants of Casentino, and “Turks” dates back to 13,000YBP. I think he was the DagoRed who wrote on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog”: read what I have written about him.
I think that if we all aren’t able to rid ourselves of all our prejudices, we’ll never reach some truth. Because our theories will be confirmed or disproved by next proofs.
My bet is that there has been a link between Etruscan (with Rhaetian and Camun) and IE languages. Probably also Basque could have some link with these ancient European languages, intermediate between the Caucasian and other “Mediterranean” ones. We go back to a very ancient period, probably when the known groups weren’t yet formed. Already the most ancient IE languages (Hittite and Tocharian, but also Albanian etc.) demonstrate an ancient phase and the link with Etruscan and other languages isn’t so unthinkable.
For instance in Etruscan “culs” are “the door” and Culsans is like Latin Ianus, from “ianua”. Why don’t think that this word is linked with our word (*k’els-)?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis can be explained because both words have a remote Vasco-Caucasian common origin: PNC *q@lV 'house, hut'. In the languages spoken in Central Europe during the Neolithic, the initial uvular evolved to a velar *k- reflected in Latin cella and Germanic *xall-ō-, but also to Latin in-cola 'inhabitant' (wrongly linked by IE-ists to PIE *kWel- 'to turn').
ReplyDeleteActually Latin in-cola, in-quil-īnus point to a PIE B root *kWel- 'to dwell' from the Eurasiatic root *gülV 'dwelling', which in turn is related to PNC *q@lV.
But for Latin cella and Germanic *xall-ō, I'd prefer instead PNC *kiɫū 'farmstead, hut'.
My bet is that there has been a link between Etruscan (with Rhaetian and Camun) and IE languages.
But only in the form of loanwords. Etruscan and its near relatives, that is, Tyrrhenian, is an un-IE language by all accounts.
Probably also Basque could have some link with these ancient European languages, intermediate between the Caucasian and other “Mediterranean” ones.
Yes, that's right. They're the result of a Westwards expansion of Neolithic farmers across Europe.
For instance in Etruscan “culs” are “the door” and Culsans is like Latin Ianus, from “ianua”. Why don’t think that this word is linked with our word (*k’els-)?
The Etruscan word seem to reflect PNEC *GHwælɕV 'stick, board; bolt'.
"Not really, as the shift *s- > h- is regular in Greek and part of Celtic.'
ReplyDeleteIt's regular in the alpine region - but please give me more examples of where it is regular in ancient Greek. If so, that may convince me that a proto-Celtic had a more eastern range than I currently suspect.
The shift from s- to h- is universal and doesn't demonstrate anything.
ReplyDeleteYes, it has nothing to with the Germanic words.
ReplyDelete@Eurologist:
ReplyDeleteWhat you say about S/H and a possible proto-sound X or CH in that place makes some good sense.
"BTW, very few people today support a Scandinavian origin of Germanic".
Uhm... Nordic Iron Age is the main Germanic origin reference. I bet we can all agree with that, right?
"Germanic surely condensed in northern and central Germany and adjacent eastern regions - how far south it originally reached is disputed, but to me it looks like Celtic was only spoken at trading posts along the main rivers (Rhine and Danube) - outside of these "oppida" it may very well have been Germanic all along (i.e., even before Roman times - from the beginning of the the separation of proto-Germanic from IE)".
I do not think this makes any sense at all. I can maybe accept the hypothesis that Germanic had a continental origin in Low Germany but all Middle and Upper Germany were Celtic in the La Tène period (and surely before to a large extent - in any case no reason to think in Germanic specifically before Celtic). Rhineland is probably the origin of Celts anyhow, unless you'd consider them to have originated in Unetiĉe culture proper (Central Germany, Bohemia, Silesia).
Very importantly you talk from the slippery foundation of mere linguistics, while I (and others) try to understand the material cultural expressions as directly related and manifestations of ethnicity to at least some extent as well. Of all this you say nothing.
@Gioello:
ReplyDeleteThe existence of bad examples in other ethnic contexts does not justify anything: I will attack irrational claims of Indian origins or Basque/Iberian origins equally. In fact I do all the time.
There is some guy who emails me sporadically and his obsession is always that there is some sort of plot to diminish the importance of Iberia in World genetics. I mostly have to put his beliefs to rest because they make no sense or only some sense: he puts emotions before reason also and the product is horrible, not apt for sale.
He's a nice guy otherwise.
"the most ancient (R1a-M420) is so far only in Europe, also in Italy, and probably the Rhaetian Region is full of them"...
That would be very interesting. Have you got any evidence?
Mind you that I do not think anymore that R1a and Indoeuropean languages are strictly related in any way. Only Ra1a7 is surely related to Corded Ware (Western IEs) but it has a more limited distribution.
"... and nobody knows for certain where IE languages were born".
I have debated this matter once and many times and I'm pretty sure it was in the Samara basin, modernly in Russia.
"You always repeat that Etruscans came from Asia Minor".
Yes: all evidence suggests that: Minoan-like hairstyles (Eteocretans also arrived from Asia minor), art (and maybe also architectural knowledge, which Romans borrowed from them). A variant of the Etruscan language was spoken in Lemnos, just offshore of ancient Troy. I think that Etruscans were Pelasgians of some sort, maybe even genuine Trojans (the Roman myth about Aeneas founding Lavinium may be related, as Aeneas is surely just a variant of wanax: 'king' in Eteocretan - and early Greek).
"I have said to you many times, and written on many forums, that this isn’t demonstrated".
I have not seen any evidence dismantling it nor any well written article on the matter either. Just because you go around complaining, "crying", you are not going to persuade anyone but mostly create a bad name for yourself and your "cause".
You should better intiate a blog or equivalent where you could calmly and positively discuss all these matters, and use such posts (full, I imagine of carefully pondered arguments, maps, paper references, graphs, etc.) to expose your argument.
I think you have some reason in some parts of what you say but it's very difficult to say with so much emotional outpouring and lack of specific data to evaluate independently by the reader.
But there is also a good deal of external input into Italy. That's undeniable and the Tuscan case is extremely odd because it's not the are you'd think most affected by Aegean immigration, only Etruscans can explain that... but only if they are, as has been argued since Antiquity, of Anatolian ("Lydian") origin.
"My bet is that there has been a link between Etruscan (with Rhaetian and Camun) and IE languages"...
I don't think Rhaetian is related to Etruscan except by loanwords, as happens with Latin. Please consider always that Etruscan alphabet lacks the sounds b, d, g and o, so they'd be likely written as p, t/th, k/q and u, much to the confusion of modern readers. It is not a matter easy to solve because only a handful of inscriptions are known, yet some words remind me to Latin anyhow, so it's maybe an outsider Italic.
"For instance in Etruscan “culs” are “the door” and Culsans is like Latin Ianus, from “ianua”. Why don’t think that this word is linked with our word (*k’els-)?"
What is "our word (*k’els-)"? Do you mean the hypothetical root of cella, gela, etc.?
I don't have any reason not to think what you say but neither any reason to thing as you say either. Doors are only vaguely related to rooms (also to houses in general and any other kind of enclosures) and Ianus/Culsan is only vaguely related to them.
So meh!
Also, Gioello, you may want to consider initiating an Italian genetic project (like Dienekes' Dodecad, Zack's Harappa, etc.) of sorts, if that matches your abilities (beats me, sincerely) or you can recruit someone with computer skills to help you.
ReplyDeleteI would really love to see how Italians cluster on their own (and in relation to neighbors but with Italian oversampling). So far research has not been able to find that elusive Italian-specific component(s) that I think must exist but if you get to research Italians specifically, it must show up.
And then, only then, we will be able to evaluate its relevance, its geographic patterns, etc.
I don't think Rhaetian is related to Etruscan except by loanwords, as happens with Latin. Please consider always that Etruscan alphabet lacks the sounds b, d, g and o, so they'd be likely written as p, t/th, k/q and u, much to the confusion of modern readers. It is not a matter easy to solve because only a handful of inscriptions are known, yet some words remind me to Latin anyhow, so it's maybe an outsider Italic.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like the so-called Rhaetic inscriptions actually reflect more than one language, one related to Etruscan and also a Celtic one.
About the forum you are right. You are doing an excellent work, but I haven’t the time, so far, for doing it: I must work to live. But I have spread my ideas in many thousands of letters (in my bad English) in many forums (two actually banned me, even though someone made amends for it) and it isn’t true I haven’t carried demonstrations and proofs: they simply must be looked for.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is important in order to expose your ideas to others, to have some reference pages where you explore and expose what you think, how it diverges from what others think and what factual evidence you have.
ReplyDeleteThat should support your ideas with greater clarity and precision that others can better understand and also allow for an improved feedback, constructive criticisms. It should provide a greater payback for your time as well: you'd only need to write once to get many potential readings instead of writing and explaining once and again the same thing. Then in your comments all around the web, instead of exposing all over and over, you'd use just a link with some context.
The use of the locative zutan 'in the heavens' is particularly interesting, because it implies the word zut (today 'on foot, upright') was used in old Basque for 'sky, heaven', which in modern Basque is zeru, a Romance loanword.
ReplyDeleteWhat a mistake! The actual 'sky' word is zu, wtih -tan being the locative.
Also zeru is just one of the eclesiastic Romance loanwords like saindu, domeka, garizima, etc.
"-tan" is locative only in some cases:
ReplyDeleteetxe-a (the house) > etxe-an (in the house)
etxe-ak (the houses) > etxe-etan (in the houses)
etxe-rik (any house/-s) > etxe-tan (in any house/-s) - this form is used in negative sentences and questions mostly, like English "any", which imply ambiguity about the attributes of the subject.
Replace etxe by zeru (arguably shortened to "zu") as needed.
So if the suffix is -tan, then it must belong to a negative or interrogative sentence: any heaven(s): z(er)u-tan.
However my dictionary lists also the following possibles beginning in "zu-" (only best examples here):
·zut: interjection for "stand up"
·zuta: milk (in Zuberoa?)
·zutabe (lit. under "zuta"): column, pillar.
·zutarri: standing stone, milestone
·zutera: verticality
·zutitu: to stand up
·zutik: stand up, standing
·zutin: erect
Etc.
So the "standing" reading makes some good sense, specially if it is a lost variant of "zutin":
"our father erect"... would emphasize that Roman era teenagers were thinking about the same things and were as irreverent as today.
It's of course just one interpretation.
"Also zeru is just one of the eclesiastic Romance loanwords like saindu, domeka, garizima, etc."
How are these words "Romance"? Remember that Christianity's ritual language was until recently Latin and only Latin. And these words all look directly taken from Latin (the ending in -u is very telling). The only exception might be Domeka (Sunday), which is ambiguous but also limited to some areas (normally Igandea).
Replace etxe by zeru (arguably shortened to "zu") as needed.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. This zu must be the genuine Basque word for 'sky, heaven', later substituted by Romance zeru.
"our father erect"... would emphasize that Roman era teenagers were thinking about the same things and were as irreverent as today.
This is absurd. You insist in reading this as it were modern Basque when it's not.
How are these words "Romance"? Remember that Christianity's ritual language was until recently Latin and only Latin.
Actually an evolved form of Latin, that is, Late Latin or early Romance from the Visigothic period. Remember that early Latin loanwords in Basque have different phonetic features: velars don't get palatized before e, i and the Latin s becames z (the lamino-alveolar sibilant).
The only exception might be Domeka (Sunday), which is ambiguous but also limited to some areas (normally Igandea).
There're also other words like the one corresponding to Spanish quaresma and also the other day names in Biscayan.
"This zu must be the genuine Basque word for 'sky, heaven'"...
ReplyDeleteWhy? I can't imagine why at all. In principle it is ortzi/ost, as documented in plenty of derived nouns (meteorological, weekdays) and the attested case of Codex Calixtinus: "et Deus vocant Urcia".
It is generally agreed that that this Urtzi/Ost is the personification of the sky (I'd dare say that related to (pre-)Greek Ouranos) however it was not venerated (as were the chtonic gods but rather used to absorb foreign beliefs related to the sky: Jupiter first, Yaveh later).
"This is absurd".
Maybe... but standing or something may well be. It does not seem related to the drawing of a crucified man... or only obliquely. A matter for debate in any case.
"Late Latin or early Romance from the Visigothic period".
I doubt that there was much of an influence in the Visigothic non-period. The Dark Ages are largely a continuation of the generalized hostility that surely existed with the Celts in the pre-Roman period. If anywhere Basques looked to the Franks (a more distant and less brutal foreign domain, under which the Duchy of Vasconia was constituted) and not the Visigoths.
In any case there has been a lot of mention on the Latin texts being not Classical but clearly Vulgar - however not Romance yet in any case: early transitional at the most. This was one of the alleged evidence in favor of falsification: that the Latin texts were in most cases poor Latin - then came an expert in Vulgar Latin and said: indeed, it's Vulgar Latin and that makes them even more interesting.
Remember that we are dealing here with draft writs, surely school exercises or something of the like. There is not a single formal text in all the findings AFAIK.
"There're also other words like the one corresponding to Spanish quaresma and also the other day names in Biscayan".
But all this may have been implemented recently: it may well be direct Spanish influence, which has been active for the last 800 years or more.
However I want to make quick mention here that I conjecture that Latin verb sancio (to exert authority, to sanction), root of saint, is non-IE and comes from Vasconic zaindu (to care, to guard). The devolution of the word into the Basque linguistic zone would produce saindu (and not santu as would be from sanctum), quite naturally. This is a loanword but possibly also a linguistic boomerang effect.
As for Garizima, the closest I can find is Italian Quaresima (Lat. Quadragesima), so it is maybe again a loan via Vulgar Latin, rather than any nearby Romance.
"This zu must be the genuine Basque word for 'sky, heaven'"...
ReplyDeleteWhy? I can't imagine why at all. In principle it is ortzi/ost, as documented in plenty of derived nouns (meteorological, weekdays) and the attested case of Codex Calixtinus: "et Deus vocant Urcia".
Ortzi/Urtzi was actually a Sky-God like Jupiter or Thor, not properly 'sky'.
My point is zu was the Basque genuine word for 'sky' before it was replaced by zeru.
I doubt that there was much of an influence in the Visigothic non-period.
IMHO an early Romance language was probably spoken in the Western part of the Basque Country at that time. Later, the area was (re)Vasconized but this language survived in loanwords (I'm overly simplifying).
But all this may have been implemented recently: it may well be direct Spanish influence, which has been active for the last 800 years or more.
Not really (see above).
As for Garizima, the closest I can find is Italian Quaresima (Lat. Quadragesima), so it is maybe again a loan via Vulgar Latin, rather than any nearby Romance.
You're confused here, because ALL Romance languages, including the lexicon of Romance origin embedded in Basque, come from Vulgar Latin. Nobody spoke Classical Latin.
But most important, these words didn't come from any "nearby" Romance, but the autochtonous one.
However I want to make quick mention here that I conjecture that Latin verb sancio (to exert authority, to sanction), root of saint, is non-IE and comes from Vasconic zaindu (to care, to guard).
I'm afraid this is wrong. The Basque word is a loanword from Gaulish danos 'magistrate, curator', with initial d- > z- and final -o > -i.
"Ortzi/Urtzi was actually a Sky-God like Jupiter or Thor, not properly 'sky'".
ReplyDeleteThere should be no difference (personification of a natural phenomenon), specially when such "god" was not even venerated at all, it seems.
"My point is zu was the Basque genuine word for 'sky' before it was replaced by zeru".
Why? Just because of this graffito?
"IMHO an early Romance language was probably spoken in the Western part of the Basque Country at that time. Later, the area was (re)Vasconized ...".
Nonsense. There was all the time irregular penetration of Latin, then Vulgar Latin and finally Romances (more like in the High Middle Ages, when they begin to be attested) but there was no re-vasconization anywhere: speaking Basque was never useful, nor politically encouraged, just natural.
Basque has been receding or at best resisting passively all the time since before the Romans. It was once spoken however in much larger areas than today, for example the Cantabri surely spoke Basque (or related dialect) and probably the Astures and Artabri as well, it was spoken in what is now Aragon and parts of Catalonia, in Aquitaine, La Rioja and once surely in even much wider areas.
"Not really (see above)".
Nothing relevant "above", quit the one-liners if you want to communicate, ok?
"Nobody spoke Classical Latin".
LOL. There would be no classical Latin if it was never spoken. All written languages are first spoken languages. And we know that the likes of Cato, Virgilio, Caesar, Pliny, etc. wrote in classical Latin, so they surely spoke classical Latin as well.
"... these words didn't come from any "nearby" Romance, but the autochtonous one".
You're making up all that.
Anyhow the attested Romance closest to Biscay was Castilian (born at Valpuesta, not too far from Iruña-Veleia) and then Navarrese Romance (attested in La Rioja together with Basque) and then Gascon and Astur-Leonese.
So if anything it should come from Castilian, which, as everybody knows, is Vulgar Latin badly spoken by some aculturized Basques, just like Aragonese or Gascon.
"The Basque word is a loanword from Gaulish danos 'magistrate, curator', with initial d- > z- and final -o > -i".
And what else?! You read that somewhere and you adopted that nonsense acritically. It's pointless to debate with you because you make these claims without any logic and expect people to accept them "just because".
"My point is zu was the Basque genuine word for 'sky' before it was replaced by zeru".
ReplyDeleteWhy? Just because of this graffito?
Yes, because gure ata zutan means 'our Father in heaven'. It's also clear than the loanword zeru replaced whatever native word was in use.
Nonsense. There was all the time irregular penetration of Latin, then Vulgar Latin
Spoken Latin is by definition VL.
but there was no re-vasconization anywhere: speaking Basque was never useful, nor politically encouraged, just natural.
Sorry, but there's evidence in toponymy and loanwords of a Romance language being spoken in the Westernmost parts of the Basque Country (Bizkaia, Araba), at least until the High Middle Ages.
Basque has been receding or at best resisting passively all the time since before the Romans. It was once spoken however in much larger areas than today, for example the Cantabri surely spoke Basque (or related dialect) and probably the Astures and Artabri as well, it was spoken in what is now Aragon and parts of Catalonia, in Aquitaine, La Rioja and once surely in even much wider areas.
I'm afraid this a popular MYTH which is only half true. Actually, Basque and its nearest relatives formed a dialectal continnum already differentiated in Roman Times. This linguistic domain was receding in some parts but expanding in others.
LOL. There would be no classical Latin if it was never spoken. All written languages are first spoken languages. And we know that the likes of Cato, Virgilio, Caesar, Pliny, etc. wrote in classical Latin, so they surely spoke classical Latin as well.
Perhaps on formal situations, but not in everyday life. In fact, during the Roman Empire, most Latin speakers of Latin were actually people from conquered lands, not Romans themselves. So they spoke an imperfect Latin with loanwords from their autochtonous languages.
You're making up all that.
Not really. There's Romance toponymy (in some cases adapted to basque phonetics) in Biscaya and Araba such as bolin-, borin- 'mill' (e.g. the surname Bolibar,ancient Bolinivar, Borinivar) < molinu- or Faido 'beech plantation' < Latin fagetu- and Payueta from Romance fayo 'beech'.
Anyhow the attested Romance closest to Biscay was Castilian
The autochtonous Biscayan Romance, alhhough similar to Castilian, was certainly not the same language.
So if anything it should come from Castilian, which, as everybody knows,
Who's "everybody"? perhaps amateurs like youself? :-)
Invoking authority isn't useful, specially when you summon people to "question everything".
Vulgar Latin badly spoken
VL was "badly spoken" everywhere, not just in a particular place.
by some aculturized Basques,
I don't think Castilian has a Basque substrate, if this is what you mean. IMHO, the autochtonous languages(s) of that area were different from Basque, although they had contacts with it.
As I said earlier, Basque is part of a former dialectal continuum spoken in the Pyrenean-Aquitanian area. There's also evidence in NW Catalonia toponymy of a Romance language heavily influenced by a Vascoid language, but which it was later replaced by Catalan and Gascon, so the only true native Pyrenaic Romance which has survived (although strongly denaturalized) until today is Aragonese.
And what else?! You read that somewhere and you adopted that nonsense acritically. It's pointless to debate with you because you make these claims without any logic and expect people to accept them "just because".
I'm always open to debate. It's you who comes with bold claims of your own.
Also Basque eliza, eleiza, elexa, eleja 'church' is a Romance loanword *elesia from Church Latin ecclēsia-. If you compare this word in other Romance languages such as Spanish iglesia or gascon glèisa you'll see the Basque word has evolved on its own.
ReplyDeleteWe also find the same evolution in keriza, kereiza, kerexa, gerexa 'cherry', from late Latin *ceresja, which corresponds to classical cerasiu-, which gave Basque gerezi.
This is the evidence that a language different from Basque was spoken in the Westernmost part of today's Basque country (Bizkaia and Araba).
"Yes, because gure ata zutan means 'our Father in heaven'".
ReplyDeleteIt does not need to mean that: it is only one possibility. It may be standing or in the high or even "in you". It is unlikely to be a genuine Basque word for sky but, if anything, an apocope of zeru.
There is at least one case that reads "sutan" (would be "in fire" if we take it literally).
This one is probably the most clear one (there are several Lord's Prayer style graffiti). It reads quite clearly:
?IIVRII "ATA" ZUTAN
AIIIN? "IIISVS" TA
IIGIN BADI ZUR
The presence of quotation marks makes this text one of the most denounced as fake (what is understandable up to a point).
The usual reading is "geure "ata" zutan / Reinu "Iesus" ta / egin badi zur". Translates as: our(??) "father" in heaven(??) / because of kingdom "iesus" / let he do wood"
There are several words widely open to interpretation:
1. geure (could be zeure, neure, etc.)
2. zutan (reading as "in heaven" is highly conjectural)
3. reinu does not read reinu but "aien+", the last letter being not clear at all (could be also "aein+" but the "R" is actually an "A" for sure)
4. zur (wood) could be read as... what?!
It may even be an anti-Christian text altogether. The use of quotation marks really indicates some sort of distance.
Other texts in which "zutan" shows up are:
This one, said to read "Yaveh / zutan / izana".
But the word "yaveh" could be anything. I read: IINIIVIIII (e neue e), the smaller marks in the line don't help but I see no "Yaveh" (ieve: IIIVII in the script used in Veleia), which is no doubt a clear case of wishful thinking.
The rest of the graffito is straightforward: zutan / izana: "the name stands (firm)", IMO.
This one is said to read "geure ata zutan geure ata" but I read "geure ata izutan" in the first fragment. The second "geure" is blurry. Can this "izutan" (very clear) be a key to understand zutan elsewhere? "Izutu" is to scare and, while izutan does not exist anymore it might be read as "in fear, scared" (just a possibility).
This one reads: "GIIVRII ATA / SUTAN SIIRA / ANA SAN / TV". The reading, specially the last lines, is not straightforward but it is notable that sutan here comes with S, which, if read simply, means "on fire".
For me it is anything but clear and I do not see Lord's Prayers in these texts. If they are, the similarity with the actual canonical text is very thin, oblique maybe even hostile. The beginning of the canonical text per the Huguenot translation of Leizarraga (1570) is:
Gure Aita ceruëtan aicena,
Sanctifica bedi hire Icena.
Ethor bedi hire Resumá.
Modernly:
Gure Aita, Zeruetan zaudena [izana],
santu izan bedi zure [hire] izena.
Etor bedi zure [hire] erreinua.
For other more Gospelic versions see here. For example according to Mark's Gospel:
Gure Aita zerukoa,
agertu santu zeure izena,
etorrarazi zeure erregetza.
But well...
The rest of the graffito is straightforward: zutan / izana: "the name stands (firm)", IMO.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not. This is the verb izan 'to be', not izen 'name'. The trnaslation would "Yaveh (who) is in heaven".
I don't know why you insist in reading zu-tan 'in heaven' as if it were modern Basque.
"Spoken Latin is by definition VL".
ReplyDeleteIn disagreement. Vulgar Latin evolved as Latin became creolized, as Rome expanded. It gradually replaced classical Latin as the spoken language but this was not always the case. Also there's probably not any single Vulgar Latin but a number of dialects or rather a dialect continuum.
Anyhow the Latin spoke by the ancient Aquitani was considered as excellent, better than that of Rome (who said that? Strabo?) This was probably because of the simple 5-vowel system of Basque language, which makes words sound more clear in a language that, as Latin, also has the 5-vowel system (although with long/short duality).
"So if anything it should come from Castilian, which, as everybody knows,
Who's "everybody"? perhaps amateurs like youself?
It is a long held idea. Spanish grammar themselves, in spite of their chauvinism and the little respect that Spaniards usually have for anything Basque have to admit that: five vowel system, loss of initial f and a number of other such traits. The "dynamism" shown by Castilian (in comparison to more "conservative" Occitan-Catalan or its Galician-Leonese parent) is mere corruption by Basque influence in most cases.
"VL was "badly spoken" everywhere, not just in a particular place".
There was no Internet nor mass media back then: people learned the language in their town and only a few traveled through the Empire. Vulgar Latin was necessarily dialectal since its very beginning. Maybe it was "badly spoken" everywhere but in each place it was badly spoken in a particular way, just like Castilian now is "badly spoken" differently in Mexico, Buenos Aires or Cádiz (the worst of all, the most difficult to understand of all Castilian dialects by far).
"I don't think Castilian has a Basque substrate"...
It does no doubt and it is recognized in all the Spanish language manuals I have ever studied. This is something you learn in primary school (Lázaro Carreter).
Castile as such was formed as a frontier county (or more properly a march) in the Basque/Cantabrian frontier. The influence of León surely secured they ended up speaking Romance but the Basque influence was anyhow too marked for that Romance being mere Leonese.
If you read the entry Condado de Castilla in Wikipedia, all the beginning is historical Basque area: Mena, Valpuesta, Araba, Valdegobia. Later there is mention of Brañosera (Palencia) but Palencia was always León, not Castile until the Late Middle Ages. Essentially it seems like at this time there was no Castile yet but a Basque western frontier and a Leonese eastern frontier. But Castilian language would first appear in the Basque western frontier (later however).
The first Count of Castile was Rodrigo, 852. In 860, Castile included a number of valleys in the Cantabrian mountains: Sotoscueva, Espinosa de los Monteros, Bricia, Valdivieso, Mena, La Losa (Burgos prov.), Tobalina, and maybe reached by the West to Brañosera (NE Palencia prov.) It was essentially the area of Burgos Province just SW of Bilbao, all of it in the Ebro basin and not yet having taken anything beyond Atapuerca or even in La Rioja. It is an area full of Basque toponimy and with strong historical ties to the Basque Country, specially Biscay and Araba. Its southern border was Amaya (a clear Basque name and historical city of the Cantabri).
It is only in 882 that Burgos is "repopulated" (consolidated). Burgos is an important pivotal conquest because it implies that Castile now looks at the Upper Duero basin as well and not just the Upper Ebro. It is at this point when Castile becomes something more than a western Basque frontier under changing political control (Leon, Pamplona, independent counts alternate all the time until its constitution as kingdom in the 11th century).
"Basque is part of a former dialectal continuum spoken in the Pyrenean-Aquitanian area".
ReplyDeleteWhich I call simply Basque. There's no particular reason to draw a line at the modern borders of Basque language or identity, as these are medieval or modern and did not exist in antiquity. When Caesar fought the Aquitanians and their Cantabrian brethren, he was fighting against the Basques and nothing else: name changes not real ethnic changes.
And it is not just a matter of the Pyrenees as understood today but a matter of the Pyrenees as understood by Strabo, i.e. reaching all the way up to Galicia.
"Absolutely not. This is the verb izan 'to be', not izen 'name'"
ReplyDeleteOk, I stand corrected: "the being" and not "the name".
"The trnaslation would "Yaveh (who) is in heaven"".
There is no "who is" anywhere there: izana cannot be translated but as "the being" (or at best "the name"). "Who is..." is "dena" (also meaning, "what is", "all").
"I don't know why you insist in reading zu-tan 'in heaven' as if it were modern Basque".
It is our only reference. But I don't "insist", I just begin at that point, what is I think compulsory, a matter of good method.
"I don't think Castilian has a Basque substrate"...
ReplyDeleteIt does no doubt and it is recognized in all the Spanish language manuals I have ever studied. This is something you learn in primary school (Lázaro Carreter).
LOL. And you said "question everything".
This is a MYTH contradicted by linguistic evidence. Please read carefully what I wrote earlier.
There is no "who is" anywhere there: izana cannot be translated but as "the being" (or at best "the name").
I'm afraid the definitive article -a of modern Basque didn't exist at that time.
t is our only reference. But I don't "insist", I just begin at that point, what is I think compulsory, a matter of good method.
Using modern Basque to translate ancient texts can't be a "good method".
"Please read carefully what I wrote earlier".
ReplyDeleteNothing relevant that I can find.
"I'm afraid the definitive article -a of modern Basque didn't exist at that time".
Because you say so.
Elexpuru disagrees. I do too.
Also IMO -a is not any article but the nominative-1 declension. I think that reading Basque declensions as articles just because Spanish and English use articles instead of declensions is essentially wrong (even if they have similar function).
"Using modern Basque to translate ancient texts can't be a "good method"".
Using REAL Basque as first reference before considering other stuff is good method. Using conjectural proto-words that have been conceived not even using Basque as reference but the obscure Caucasian languages is BAD method.
Reality check!
"Basque is part of a former dialectal continuum spoken in the Pyrenean-Aquitanian area".
ReplyDeleteWhich I call simply Basque. There's no particular reason to draw a line at the modern borders of Basque language or identity, as these are medieval or modern and did not exist in antiquity.
I'm speaking about a linguistic domain, and the Aquitanian inscriptions already show isoglosses running through it.
You're mixing linguistic and non-linguistic data, which should be keep separated.
Nothing relevant that I can find.
ReplyDeleteThe I'm wasting my time trying to argue with you.
Because you say so.
No, because it can be shown that the article -a 'the' derives from the old demostrative har 'that', still found in Biscayan a.
Also IMO -a is not any article but the nominative-1 declension. I think that reading Basque declensions as articles just because Spanish and English use articles instead of declensions is essentially wrong (even if they have similar function).
I'm afraid you don't quite understand the matter.
Using REAL Basque as first reference before considering other stuff is good method.
No, it's an amateurish method.
Using conjectural proto-words that have been conceived not even using Basque as reference but the obscure Caucasian languages is BAD method.
I also think you don't understand the comparative method.
There's also evidence in NW Catalonia toponymy of a Romance language heavily influenced by a Vascoid language, but which it was later replaced by Catalan and Gascon, so the only true native Pyrenaic Romance which has survived (although strongly denaturalized) until today is Aragonese.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very curious claim for many reasons but the main one is that there is no linguistic or toponymic proof that another Romance language was spoken in the Pyrenees prior to the alleged "introduction" of Gascon and Catalan as these very languages were actually born in the Pyrenees or to be more precise Romance dialects as spoken in the Pyrenees were decisive in the forging of the two idioms.
In the case of Gascon, its Basco-Pyrenean character is that obvious from the mouth of the Adour river to the Gironde estuary (repugnance for labiodentals f and v, mb > m, prothetic ar-, conservation of [kw] and [gw], intervocalic ll > r, loss of intervocalic n, ...) that I wonder why one should theoricize that it replaced other vernacular Romance languages. It is simply the language born in Aquitanian cities such as Elusa, Atura, Augusta Auscorum and eventually the famous Lugdunum Convenarum (a Roman creation) ultimatelly influenced by Latin as spoken in Tolosa or Burdigala (hence the modern division between East Gascon and West Gascon, West Gascon showing vocalic reduction just like in Castillian as well).
Let's add that some Pyrenean Gascon dialects have also retained intervocalic deaf consonants like some Aragonese dialects and obviously like Basque when borrowing Latin words.
That is a very curious claim for many reasons but the main one is that there is no linguistic or toponymic proof that another Romance language was spoken in the Pyrenees prior to the alleged "introduction" of Gascon and Catalan
ReplyDeleteObviously, you haven't read the work of Joan Coromines. There're plenty of toponyms like Montarto or Saliente which are neither from Gascon nor Catalan but are similar (although not identical) to Aragonese.
as these very languages were actually born in the Pyrenees
But certainly not in the Central Pyrenees, where toponomastic evidence tells us of language replacement.
Quoted from http://html.rincondelvago.com/historia-de-la-llengua-catalana_7.html(in Catalan):
ReplyDeleteJoan Coromines distingeix tres grups pel que fa a toponímia bascoide en la zona pirenaica de Catalunya:
Pallars i Ribagorça
Andorra, Alt Urgell i Cerdanya
Cerdanya cap al mar
Coromines conclou que la romanització del Pallars i de la Ribagorça degué ser molt tardana. El llatí i el romànic no arribaren al Pallars fins al s. VIII-IX, igual que en la Ribagorça. L'any 806 aquestes zones s'incorporen al marquesat de Tolosa (Imperi Carolingi) i romangueren allí fins al s.IX quan s'independitzen de Tolosa. Fins l'any 1000 no desapareix el basc d'aquestes dues zones.
Progressivament hi hagué una romanització d'aquestes zones, sobretot a les ciutats perquè als pobles encara es parlava basc. És a dir, hi hagué un moment on aquestes dues llengües confluïren. Era un romànic que tenia una llengua catalana però amb elements occitans i aragonesos. Aquest pallarés primitiu el coneguem gràcies a la toponímia, per exemple:
Conservació de la o nominal: Basco
Conservació de la e final: Corte, saliente
Caiguda de la n intervocàlica: solano > lo Solau
Manteniment de la n final de mot: PuigFalcon
Manteniment de Ge,i velar sense palatalitzar: Arguiles
Manteniment del grup NS sense reduir a S: defensa i devesa
La -ll- intervocàlica donava una /z/ sonora
Diftongació de la e breu E(breu) > ie per influència de l'aragonés
Aquestes característiques van desaparéixer davant la influència del comtat d'Urgell, Andorra i la Cerdanya (romanitzats al s.V). Actualment encara apareixen influències bascoides al Pallars i la Ribagorça en alguns mots i en la toponímia.
Synthesis of the above:
ReplyDelete"Coromines concluded that the Romanizaton of Pallars and Ribagorza must have taken place only very late. Latin and Romance did not arrive to Pallars until the 8th or 9th century. (...) Until the year 1000 Basque language does not disappear from these two areas".
"There was a progressive Romanization of these zones, specially the towns, because the villages spoke Basque. (...) It was a Romance that had Catalan but also Occitan and Aragonese elements".
(...)
"Today there are still Vascoid influences at Pallars and Ribagorza in some toponyms".
Octavia: try please to synthesize or translate to English, it's not like most readers here can read Catalan (not even Spanish) with any ease.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't you force the rest to either ignore you or to work for you gratis, as I just did.
...
I think that all the texts talks of a transitional Romance and not a distinct "language", which never really coalesced as such. In fact, it seems that today in Ribagorza Catalan and Aragonese form a dialect continuum. From Wikipedia:
"Ribagorçan is the eastern dialect of Aragonese spoken in the western part of the county. Municipalities in the eastern part, bordering Catalonia, are part of La Franja, a geo-linguistic area, where the local language is a variety of Catalan. However, Aragonese and Catalan form a dialectal continuum here and the geographical limit of both languages cannot be drawn in a clear-cut manner".
Also I wonder if when they say "Occitan", they mean Gascon. Because it's not like Catalan and Languedocin/Provenzal (the true Occitan) are so different that you can make clear differences. I have the feeling that the author means Gascon where he/she says "Occitan".
It is very interesting to confirm in any case that Basque was spoken in that area until so late (just a mere 1000 years ago). Notice that the authors say "Basque" and not "an unknown pre-Indoeuropean language somehow related to Basque" (as no doubt Octavià would have preferred) - and that is the general usage for both the Pyrenees and the pre-Gascon plains. And it is that way for a reason.
Octavia: try please to synthesize or translate to English, it's not like most readers here can read Catalan (not even Spanish) with any ease.
ReplyDeleteMy own interest was to refute Heraus' erroneous claim, but I hadn't the time to translate the text nor I wanted to do it. In fact, I dislike to be compelled to write everything in English, as this is a kind of linguistic dictatorship.
I think that all the texts talks of a transitional Romance and not a distinct "language", which never really coalesced as such. In fact, it seems that today in Ribagorza Catalan and Aragonese form a dialect continuum.
Not really. Coromines' work refers to an extinct Romance once spoken in these areas, not to today's transitional Ribagorçan varieties between Catalan and Aragonese. That is, this Pyrenaic Romance (hevaily influenced by a Vascoid language) was finally replaced by Gascon and Catalan through a bilingual period where coexisted both languages.
Also I wonder if when they say "Occitan", they mean Gascon. Because it's not like Catalan and Languedocin/Provenzal (the true Occitan) are so different that you can make clear differences. I have the feeling that the author means Gascon where he/she says "Occitan".
Yes, that's right. Catalan scholars tend to emphasize the independence of their own language by calling "Occitan" the other Occitano-Romance (a term coined by Pèire/Pierre Bec in his book La langue occitane) varieties such as Gascon.
It is very interesting to confirm in any case that Basque was spoken in that area until so late (just a mere 1000 years ago).
Not proper Basque but a Vascoid (that is, similar to Basque) language.
Notice that the authors say "Basque" and not "an unknown pre-Indoeuropean language somehow related to Basque" (as no doubt Octavià would have preferred) - and that is the general usage for both the Pyrenees and the pre-Gascon plains.
I'm afraid this is a overly simplification, unacceptable by serious linguistic research.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the text is sometimes erroneous and imprecise, I'm going to summarize the main isoglosses of this extinct Pyrenaic Romance as deduced from ancient toponymy:
ReplyDelete1) Final -o, -e are kept, unlike in Gascon and Catalan.
2) Latin short e diphtongates in ie like in Aragonese.
3) Intervocalic -n- is lost like in Gascon and Basque.
3) Final -n is kept, like in Gascon and Aragonese.
4) Intervocalic -ll- gives a voiced fricative *δ, rendered in Catalan as a sibilant [z]. This is parallel to Gascon, which in the same context has [r], probably through an intermediate retroflex *ɖ.
5) The velar g isn't palatalized before front vowels e,i like in Basque.
These isoglosses reveal a heavily Vasconized Romance language which shares isoglosses with Gascon and Aragonese, altough certainly is different from both.
It is a little bit shocking that who writes of Romance Philology doesn’t get a knowledge of his basic elements: Latin.
ReplyDeleteWe can see this not only by simple typos
NURURS non NURA (actually NURUS non NURA)
CALIDA non CLADA (actually CALIDA non CALDA)
but by Historic mistakes
“La data de la romanització… [de] la Dàsia (al s. IIaC)” actually (al s. IIdC)
and above all not knowledge of Latin
“Per exemple ‘fabulari’ (hablar) en compte de ‘locu’” actually ‘loqui’.
Very interesting is the Assimilació de la cons. implosiva a l’esplosiva in
–ND- >nn > n / -MB- > mm > m
that Menéndez Pidal explains by a colonization from South Italy. There in fact were spoken Osco-Umbrian languages which got this phenomenon.
I think it would be interesting to think rather to a phenomenon of substrate, i.e. the presence in North East Spain of an IE of Oscan type, come from the Rhine or Rhone, the “Primera onada 2200-1100aC”, or directly from Italy. You know that I have always supported the theory of the migration from Italy, not only for the “Tercera onada, ss. VII-V aC”, but also for the others: haplogroup R-P312* above all.
Very interesting is the Assimilació de la cons. implosiva a l’esplosiva in
ReplyDelete–ND- >nn > n / -MB- > mm > m
that Menéndez Pidal explains by a colonization from South Italy. There in fact were spoken Osco-Umbrian languages which got this phenomenon.
Obviously, Menéndez Pidal didn't think about pre-Latin substrates. His explanation is now outdated.
I think it would be interesting to think rather to a phenomenon of substrate, i.e. the presence in North East Spain of an IE of Oscan type, come from the Rhine or Rhone, the “Primera onada 2200-1100aC”, or directly from Italy.
You should probably know that Oscan belongs to the same Italic language family than does Latin. You're probably referring to Italoid, an IE language located somewhere between Baltic and Italic in the IE dialectal cloud.
Italoid (called "Sorotàptic" by Coromines) mainly survives in toponymy and loanwords, although there's a (now lost) lead foil inscription from Amélie-les-Bains studied by Coromines. Also Lusitanian appears to be a dialect of Italoid.
I love the idea of "Italoid" even if I am unsure of its real existence (how does it fit with the concept of Balto-Slavic?) The idea that Latin and Latvian are related is just lovely. The conjectural ancestral language should of course be called "Lattic" or "Lato" and not "Italoid" (so ugly!)
ReplyDeleteOtherwise I can only say that the first likely IE flow West of the Rhine is the Urnfield culture penetration from the Rhine country along the West margin of the Rhône and into Languedoc and Catalonia. These are the first Indoeuropeans of all West Europe (and probably Italy too) and are generally related with Celts or proto-Celts of some sort. "Italoid" has been sometimes alleged in the case of Lusitanian but a proto-Celtic is generally more accepted, much as Myceneanean language is generally considered proto-Greek in spite of its shocking similitudes to Latin in some aspects (but not others).
Correction: "and probably Italy too" - Not really. Urnfield-related penetrations in North Italy are probably a bit older, maybe 1500 BCE (Catalan Urnfields are more like 1200 BCE but are Urnfields senso stricto, so more likely related to Celts, whose homeland is usually thought as the Rhine country).
ReplyDeleteI love the idea of "Italoid" even if I am unsure of its real existence (how does it fit with the concept of Balto-Slavic?) The idea that Latin and Latvian are related is just lovely.
ReplyDeleteYou might think of Italoid as a cousin of Baltic and Italic, but this doesn't make them closer related than they actually are.
The conjectural ancestral language should of course be called "Lattic" or "Lato" and not "Italoid" (so ugly!)
This "conjectural ancestral language" is nothing else than PIE.
"Italoid" has been sometimes alleged in the case of Lusitanian but a proto-Celtic is generally more accepted,
Bullshit. No Celtic language would have retained IE *p or have *bh > f like Lusitanian.
And you accused me of not pursuing facts!
much as Myceneanean language is generally considered proto-Greek
ReplyDeleteCertainly not "Proto-Greek" but an archaic form of Greek.
in spite of its shocking similitudes to Latin in some aspects (but not others).
Apparently, Mycenean had contacts with Early Latin and Etruscan due to trade relationships in the Iron Age.
Urnfield-related penetrations in North Italy are probably a bit older, maybe 1500 BCE (Catalan Urnfields are more like 1200 BCE but are Urnfields senso stricto, so more likely related to Celts, whose homeland is usually thought as the Rhine country).
ReplyDeleteYou'd better avoid arguments with expressions like "usually thought" or "generally more accepted", as they actually refer to AUTHORITY.
Unless you're a clever manipulator, you can't say "always question everything" once and recurr to authority next time.
Getting back to the issue, the traditional theory about Celtic homeland has been recently questioned, and IMHO on grounded reasons. I've already mentioned Koch, but you can also find a different criticism in Oppenheimer (2006): The Origins of the British, a cheap book you can buy in Internet.
A homeland located just North of the Pyrenees, thus including Languedoc, makes much more sense IMHO. Also the Celtic expansion across the British and the Atlantic fringe was a sea-faring one.
I also think the sailors skills of Celtic-speaking people have been underestimated. Have you read my article about the survival of the Celitc word for 'rudder' in Spanish and Portuguese?
@ Octavià
ReplyDelete“You should probably know that Oscan belongs to the same Italic language family than does Latin”.
This isn’t actually true. Only who doesn’t know Latin and Osco Umbrian (above all the Tabulae Igubinae) can think so.
This was also the position of the great Italian linguist (a Ligurian) Giacomo Devoto, the greatest scholar of the Tabulae.
See: C. Tagliavini, Le origini delle lingue neolatine, Patron, Bologna, 1969, page 94 (on this book I sustained at Florence University in the first 70th an exam with the great Emilio Peruzzi, teacher of the Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa (30/30).
"This "conjectural ancestral language" is nothing else than PIE".
ReplyDeleteI was joking a bit with "Latto" but I must say that between PIE and all these actual languages there must be a WIE stage: Western Indoeuropean (or PWIE if you like it better) which is the common ancestor of Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Italic and Celtic (and maybe Illyrian but not other IE branches).
This grouping appears in all or nearly all IE phylogenies and is logical also based on archaeology within the Kurgan model. So surely "Latto" is nothing but a joke but WIE is for real and corresponds with the language of Corded Ware culture.
"No Celtic language would have retained IE *p or have *bh > f like Lusitanian".
That's why it's proto-Celtic and not true Celtic. Not much is known about Lusitanian anyhow, just a few inscriptions.
From Wikipedia:
"Anderson (1985) and Untermann (1987) classify Lusitanian as a Celtic language.[3][4] This is based largely on numerous apparently Celtic personal, deity, and place names.[5][6] However, Lusitanian preserves the Proto-Indo-European initial *p-, as in Lusitanian porcom “pig”, whereas proto-Celtic lost that initial *p- at a much earlier date than that from which Lusitanian is attested"...
This is easily solved if we accept that Lusitanian is attested only at the end of its history (all is in Latin alphabet so for sure it is the case). If proto-Lusitanian was spoken by Iberian Urnfield peoples and then (Hallstatt culture) replaced in some areas by evolved Celtic (Celtiberian) we'd have (proto-)Lusitanian as the oldest diverging language of the Celtic branch of Western IE, so it could well have retained the famous "lost P" of proto-Celtic.
Others have proposed "corrupting" Latin influence but I'd rather think of a distinct early branch of proto-Celtic and not yet true Celtic. It'd be (roughly):
1. Urnfield: proto-Celtic (> Lusitanian)
2. Hallstatt: Q-Celtic (> Celtiberian)
3. La Tène: P-Celtic (Gaulish, Brythonic and such, Goidelic would be a survival of the earlier period)
Alternatively the Q/P Celtic are more parallel but Lusitanian would still derive from an early 'proto-Celtic' branch.
Of course nothing is for sure in these matters of archaeolinguistics but considering Lusitanian as a relative of Celtic makes at least some sense.
Alternatives exist indeed. Proto-Lusitanian could have arrived with Hallstatt from anywhere in the WIE cloud of Central Europe. This is ultimately also the origin of Italic, so that's why you see elements in common. Also Italic appears to be more conservative in some aspects than other IE languages (wonder why).
"Apparently, Mycenean had contacts with Early Latin and Etruscan due to trade relationships in the Iron Age".
ReplyDeleteMycenae was destroyed at the end of the Bronze Age and there is a whole barbaric gap known as the Dark Ages between that period and classical Greece. Also it is unlikely that Italics had yet crossed the Rubicon, i.e. established themselves in Central and Southern Italy, when Mycenae existed.
It is not a contact feature but must be, I think, some archaic commonality of IE or WIE (though Greek does not really belong to WIE it may be a bit closer to it than EIE, Indo-Iranian). Latin words like 'equos' or 'porcus' may be conservative IE elements.
I was joking a bit with "Latto" but I must say that between PIE and all these actual languages there must be a WIE stage: Western Indoeuropean (or PWIE if you like it better) which is the common ancestor of Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Italic and Celtic (and maybe Illyrian but not other IE branches).
ReplyDeletePossibly, although this doesn't bother me.
Of course nothing is for sure in these matters of archaeolinguistics but considering Lusitanian as a relative of Celtic makes at least some sense.
No, it doesn't, as linguistic evidence tells otherwise.
This grouping appears in all or nearly all IE phylogenies and is logical also based on archaeology within the Kurgan model.
IMHO the Kurgan theory is no longer valid, although I don't want to argue about this here. I'd say that equating archaeological horizons to languages is always risky and probably wrong.
That's why it's proto-Celtic and not true Celtic.
Bullshit again. In any case, the right term would be 'para-Celtic', not 'Proto-Celtic', as this is miuse of the term "Proto-", which strictly refers to the reconstructed common ancestor of a language family.
Not much is known about Lusitanian anyhow, just a few inscriptions.
Pretty much to know isn't Celtic. There's also some bibliography you might be interested to read (how much should I stress the capital importance of printed sources as opposed to Internet junk?) like Blanca María Prosper (2002): Lenguas y religiones prerromanas del occidente de la Península Ibérica.
Also it is unlikely that Italics had yet crossed the Rubicon, i.e. established themselves in Central and Southern Italy, when Mycenae existed.
ReplyDeleteReally? Why so?
This was also the position of the great Italian linguist (a Ligurian) Giacomo Devoto, the greatest scholar of the Tabulae.
ReplyDeleteSee: C. Tagliavini, Le origini delle lingue neolatine, Patron, Bologna, 1969, page 94
I see. This is page 148 in the Spanish edition: En estos últimos años algunos estudiosos, especialmente G. Devoto (n. 1897), han sostenido no sólo que la separación en osco-umbro y latino-falisco es anterior a la migración a la Península, sino que los dos grupos deben considerarse fundamentalmente separados, destruyendo así parcial o totalmente, no sólo la unidad sino la misma razón de ser de un "grupo itálico".
You might notice Taglavini's book is an old one, and since then the term "Osco-Umbrian" has been replaced by "Sabellic". Even if Sabellic is to be considered as a different group from Latin-Falliscan, they would still much more closely related than, say, Celtic.
It is what I think and I will defend the Celtic homeland in Central Europe and probably in the Rhine area if need be. I am authority enough when it comes to archaeology and the Kurgan model: I have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about.
ReplyDeleteSo you rather avoid fake shots to the flotation line like "You'd better avoid arguments with expressions like "usually thought" or "generally more accepted", as they actually refer to AUTHORITY". Because I'm just avoiding unnecessary explanatory burden and anyone familiar with the Kurgan model of Indoeuropean expansion should know what I am talking about. And every linguist who deals with Indoeuropean should be familiar with that at risk of getting very very lost in their research.
"Unless you're a clever manipulator, you can't say "always question everything" once and recurr to authority next time".
Question please. I will defend my position as much as need be (or yield if I happen to be clearly wrong, what is not likely in this case).
"I've already mentioned Koch"...
And you also insulted them as a poor linguist. Does he know anything of archaeology? Because he seems quite useless as a reference.
"you can also find a different criticism in Oppenheimer (2006)"...
Oppenheimer is quite confused and confusing and each time he writes he says something different: he knows something (not too much) but by the time he opens his mouth he is obsolete already and says too many things that are incorrect. Don't get me started with the pediatrician, please!
"A homeland located just North of the Pyrenees, thus including Languedoc, makes much more sense IMHO. Also the Celtic expansion across the British and the Atlantic fringe was a sea-faring one".
Total nonsense. It is so confused that I do not really know where to begin with. Do you know where to begin with? How did, according to this "model" the Celts reach Languedoc? In what period, from where and specially WHY do you think so?
"I also think the sailors skills of Celtic-speaking people have been underestimated".
I'd say the opposite, influenced by Oppenheimer and other weirdo conjectures, it has become a fashion to claim that Celts were seafarers. Sadly not a bit of those alleged skills have reached history. Not a single Celtic people (excepted Bretons, ok) are famed for their sailing skills. Anywhere at any time.
"Have you read my article about the survival of the Celitc word for 'rudder' in Spanish and Portuguese?"
No but the European rudder was developed probably by Basques in the 12th century. Initially it was known as "timón a la Bayonesa" or "timón a la Navarresea" (Bayonne/Navarre style steer). The oldest known depiction of a rudder exists in a monastery in Navarre (yes: inland).
There is no word that I know in Spanish for specifically rudder: it is known as "timón de codaste" for where it is placed. Spanish as other Romances does not make a difference between steer and rudder. But correct me if I am wrong.
An older version of the rudder is Chinese but nobody thinks that both inventions are related: they co-evolved separately.
"Why so?"
ReplyDeleteWithin the Kurgan model the origin of Italics is in the Terramare culture most probably. Italics are not attested in Central Italy before the 8th century (Rome's foundation).
There are some who argue that the Apennine culture is Italic but I'd rather see the Italic penentration as posterior, maybe 1000 BCE, when Latial culture appears for the first time.
Which is your opinion and why? On archaeological grounds preferably.
It is what I think and I will defend the Celtic homeland in Central Europe and probably in the Rhine area if need be. I am authority enough when it comes to archaeology and the Kurgan model: I have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about.
ReplyDeleteHa, ha, ha, ha, ha. LOL.
I'd say the opposite, influenced by Oppenheimer and other weirdo conjectures, it has become a fashion to claim that Celts were seafarers. Sadly not a bit of those alleged skills have reached history. Not a single Celtic people (excepted Bretons, ok) are famed for their sailing skills. Anywhere at any time.
This is no wonder, as Britons (not "Bretons") only could have reach the British Isles by sea. Sometimes, your way of reasoning seems a childish one. LOL.
"Have you read my article about the survival of the Celitc word for 'rudder' in Spanish and Portuguese?"
No
Then go and read it to see what I'm talking about:
http://vasco-caucasian.blogspot.com/2011/07/donde-me-llevas.html
Which is your opinion and why? On archaeological grounds preferably.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about Terramarian, but I consider people from the Villanovian culture as Italic speakers, as the Etruscan word for 'iron' was borrowed from Italic.
However, I still consider the Kurgan model as obsolete and inadequate.
the European rudder was developed probably by Basques in the 12th century. Initially it was known as "timón a la Bayonesa" or "timón a la Navarresea" (Bayonne/Navarre style steer). The oldest known depiction of a rudder exists in a monastery in Navarre (yes: inland).
Using your biased logic, I could say as a joke than medieval Basques inherited their sailing skills from their Celtic ancestors.
Here's the link to Matasović: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B2u9JXUPX7SUMGViZWMyMTEtNDIzYi00MTMzLWFjZTMtNmM0NjUzNjNhNTE0&hl=ca
ReplyDeleteI also think you owe me an appology for "forgetting" what I posted.
Proto-Celtic was a real language spoken somewhere, just like Proto-Romance is Latin (in this case we know its real name but it's just historical luck). The reconstructed form is not Proto-Celtic but linguists' best guess on actual Proto-Celtic.
ReplyDelete"I'd say that equating archaeological horizons to languages is always risky and probably wrong".
There's always a risk but material culture are not detached from ethnic identity and therefore from language. I really find annoying when some negative theorists claim that there is NO correlation: they are wrong and these theorists are sinning of over-zeal, of negative dogmatism that would render, if true, science useless.
Luckily for us they are wrong.
"IMHO the Kurgan theory is no longer valid"...
It is valid or not but it is not "no longer valid" as if meaning "it used to be".
IMNSHO it is 100% valid and the only model that can explain IE expansion as we know it. The revisionist Anatolian hypothesis still needs the Kurgan hypothesis totally fails to explain how Balcano-Danubian culture would have influenced Samara basin, thousands of kilometers away and with no contact before Kurgan expansion.
It is Renfrew's hypothesis which has not survived the test of time: in his time (remember he was Gimbutas' collaborator in some digs) maybe it was not fully clear that Eastern Europe's Neolithic was totally unrelated to the Balcano-Danubian one but now we know better and we know that Eastern European Neolithic is a local evolution by the hunter-gatherer aborigines with no known immigration nor acculturation process.
So Renfrew is really out. His was anyhow a "pop model", one made more for the Anglosaxon media and the idea of satisfying the anticipated desires of modern Indoeuropean speakers of being associated not to Gimbutas' fierce but uncivilized and bullying warriors but to proto-civilized (???) and peaceful (haha!) farmers. We know now that the "peaceful" farmers were opium-eating cannibal killers in some cases so whatever. I think that Danubian Neolithic's glamour is quite out.
In any case the hypothesis is has been proven wrong.
The IE "paleolithic continuity" is just a total nonsense: I have the defenders of that idiocy forbidden to even post. I consider them no better than creationists.
So what else? Which is your model if not Kurgan?
"as Britons (not "Bretons") only could have reach the British Isles by sea"...
ReplyDeleteCrossing Dover/Calais Strait does not make a people seafarer, the same that crossing Gibraltar did not make Arabs mariners (Simbad maybe did but there are no Celtic "Simbads").
Whose reasoning is childish?
"I consider people from the Villanovian culture as Italic speakers"
Etruscans. Continuity between Villanova and historical Etruscans is quite unquestionable.
"... as the Etruscan word for 'iron' was borrowed from Italic".
We have discussed this above, right? It is a Mediterranean wanderwort of West Asian origin.
"Then go and read it"...
ReplyDeleteI had read it but your description was misleading. It's not about the Romance word for rudder but about the Romance word for "to carry" or "to lead", which you claim it is related to Celtic for rudder. But could well be related to "to lead" as well.
And btw 'levar' comes from Latin, not Celtic. At least not directly.
"I also think you owe me an appology for "forgetting" what I posted".
ReplyDeleteI owe you nothing at all. And actually I'm tired of debating with you.
Proto-Celtic was a real language spoken somewhere,
ReplyDeleteNot really. It's a fair approximation to what the common ancestor of Celtic languages would like look like.
The reconstructed form is not Proto-Celtic but linguists' best guess on actual Proto-Celtic.
Real languages are never so uniform as reconstructed proto-languages tend to look. A dramatic example would be PIE, which is actually a loose conglomerate of several languages/dialects spoken at different times and by different people.
just like Proto-Romance is Latin
Vulgar Latin, to be more precise.
IMNSHO it is 100% valid and the only model that can explain IE expansion as we know it.
I disagree. Roughly speaking, IMHO Kurgan people from the Pontic Steppes would be speakers of Proto-Indo-Iranian.
It is Renfrew's hypothesis which has not survived the test of time:
I don't think Renfrew's is a valid alternative, but it can explain the spread of Vasco-Caucasian languages along with farming in
The IE "paleolithic continuity" is just a total nonsense: I have the defenders of that idiocy forbidden to even post. I consider them no better than creationists.
But at least they're partially right in that the IE into separate dialects began already in the Mesolithic.
So what else? Which is your model if not Kurgan?
I think the historical IE languages are the result of several waves, each one represented by a different lexicon layer. The more recent wave came from the Pontic steppes and acted as a superstrate to existing languages, by an élite dominance process driven by warfare aristocracies in the Bronze Age.
"I consider people from the Villanovian culture as Italic speakers"
Etruscans. Continuity between Villanova and historical Etruscans is quite unquestionable.
I disagree. IMHO, Etruscan were Eastern invaders who took over Villanovian people.
We have discussed this above, right? It is a Mediterranean wanderwort of West Asian origin.
But Etruscan learned it from their Villanovian precedessors.
Hypothesis hardly demonstrable without documents. Spanish ll- derives without exception from Latin pl-.
ReplyDeleteAbout “llevar” and “levar” I suggest that “levar” is from Latin “leuare” (in Italian we say “levare l’ancora”) and that “llevar” is and interference between “leuare” and “plicare”. Spanish “plegar” is of course a learned word, but the popular is *llegar.
Then everything is explainable by Latin.
I had read it but your description was misleading. It's not about the Romance word for rudder but about the Romance word for "to carry" or "to lead", which you claim it is related to Celtic for rudder. But could well be related to "to lead" as well.
ReplyDeleteBu the meaning 'to lead' is a straighforward derivation from 'rudder', as it happened in Celtic languages.
And btw 'levar' comes from Latin, not Celtic. At least not directly.
IMHO there were two homonymous words with different meanings, one 'to lift, to take' inherited from Latin and shared with other Romance languages, and another one 'to lead, to carry' borrowed from Celtic and exclusive to Spanish and Portuguese.
I owe you nothing at all.
Besides being arrogant, you've also no interest in making friends.
And actually I'm tired of debating with you.
Me too.
"... you've also no interest in making friends".
ReplyDeleteNo, absolutely not interested in internet "friendship". Friendship is something too serious: a friend is someone you'd host in your room and even your very bed if need be (and vice versa), everything else is just acquaintances.
Hypothesis hardly demonstrable without documents. Spanish ll- derives without exception from Latin pl-.
ReplyDeleteNot really, as also fl- and cl- give Spanish ll-. There're some special cases like this one.
About “llevar” and “levar” I suggest that “levar” is from Latin “leuare” (in Italian we say “levare l’ancora”) and that “llevar” is and interference between “leuare” and “plicare”.
I don't think so, as these meanings never conflated in Spanish. But an influence from the Catalan cognate verb llevar 'to take, to lift' might be possible.
You've also missed entirely the meain point of my article.
No, absolutely not interested in internet "friendship". Friendship is something too serious: a friend is someone you'd host in your room and even your very bed if need be (and vice versa), everything else is just acquaintances.
ReplyDeleteI think they're different levels of friendship, from the most intimate ones to the casual ones. Thus "hosting" somebody in one's blog can be considered as one of these friendship types.
Crossing Dover/Calais Strait does not make a people seafarer, the same that crossing Gibraltar did not make Arabs mariners (Simbad maybe did but there are no Celtic "Simbads").
ReplyDeleteI think you've got a biased opinion about Celtic people, when actually they were one of the most succesful ethnical groups of the Iron Age.
This also explains your harsh reaction to my suggestions about their influence over early Basques and Iberians.
I think you should change your pre-conceived ideas and be more open minded.
“Not really, as also fl- and cl- give Spanish ll-“.
ReplyDeleteYes: llama (Latin “flamma(m)”) and llave (Latin: *clave(m)”).
“You've also missed entirely the main point of my article”.
It doesn’t seem to me. You have an agenda and I am open to every theory, also to that (absurd) of German Dziebel about an “out of America”, but every theory must be demonstrated and it doesn’t seem to me that yours is.
AFAIK nobody has ever explain why
ReplyDeletethe meaning 'to lead, to carry' of
Spanish llevar and Portuguese levar isn't shared by other Romance languages nor could it be derived from Latin.
Which are your objections?
Llevar seems from levare: to rise. But maybe you are right and comes from Celtic: the Galaico-Leonese area had a clear Celtic substrate (unlike the Basque one, whatever you say), including Lusitanian, which is the mother of all things Celtic in West Iberia AFAIK.
ReplyDeleteBut that is not the word "rudder" in Spanish.
I must say that I may have been confused by the meaning of rudder in English. My earlier understanding was that rudder was the steering device inside the helm and not the lateral oar, which was called "steer". However looking at Wikitionary and Wikipedia today (and not in 2006) the meaning of rudder seems to include the steering oar.
When I said that Basques "developed the rudder" in Europe, I meant the advanced in-the-helm rudder ("timón de codaste" in modern Spanish) and not, of course, the traditional steering oar whose origins are lost in the depths of time.
Also, just for the record, what I said about friendship was about economic solidarity and not sex. What I meant is that friendship is a too serious commitment...
@ Octavià
ReplyDelete“nobody has ever explain why
the meaning 'to lead, to carry'”
I hypothesized that llevar was a “contaminatio” between Latin “leuare” and “plicare”.
If you can consult the “Grande Dizionaro della Lingua Italiana”, Italian “piegare” has 32 entries. Also this “to carry” or similar.
To demonstrate something does mean to do long researches: archives, documents, proofs.
To hypothesize a “contaminatio” is the last resource, but well known by linguists.
I hypothesized that llevar was a “contaminatio” between Latin “leuare” and “plicare”.
ReplyDeleteIf you can consult the “Grande Dizionaro della Lingua Italiana”, Italian “piegare” has 32 entries. Also this “to carry” or similar.
Maybe so in Italian, but not in Spanish, where llevar and llegar are different.
You haven't refuted my theory but instead have replaced it with your own, which is much more unlikely.
levar seems from levare: to rise. But maybe you are right and comes from Celtic
ReplyDeleteAs I said, there're two homomymous levar, llevar, and only one of these is from Latin.
the Galaico-Leonese area had a clear Celtic substrate
From a linguistic point view, this a pre-conceived idea to be either confirmed or disproved by actual data.
unlike the Basque one, whatever you say
Another pre-conceived idea.
including Lusitanian, which is the mother of all things Celtic in West Iberia AFAIK.
But Lusitanian isn't a Celtic language. Why do you keep insisting on that?
But that is not the word "rudder" in Spanish.
Nor it has to be. If you read Matasović, you'll see the original meaning 'rudder' developped into 'pilot, leader' already in Celtic. This is called semantic drift and it's one of the black holes in your mindset.
I did only an hypothesis, “su due piedi” how we say in Italian. Far to pretend having given a demonstration. I know very well how difficult is to demonstrate a theory. But if you get “Le origini delle lingue neolatine” of Carlo Tagliavini, read please what he says about “llevar” and “llegar” (§ 47). Perhaps it may help.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that for demonstrating your hypothesis lacks the best:
1) that the Celt word was present in Iberia
2) that that word was pronounced *lew-
3) why from a noun was formed a verb
4) why that *l- was become ll-, seen that Celt languages had lost the beginning p- from so long
5) that the meaning “plough” was become “to lead” (the parallel with “gubernare” isn’t sustainable: it lacks the history of the word)
etc etc.
Also the exam of “plaumoratum” lacks any explication:
1) A Rhaetic word? Evidently Plinius has latinized a local word, but was the original one?
2) And why to section “plaumo-ratum”? Couldn’t we see in “oratum” the IE name of the plough? And the –m- either euphonic or the rest of the laryngeal presumed? And plau- from IE *pleu- also “to move” in the meaning “mobile plough”?
Like for “llevar” we can do many hypotheses, but a scientific demonstration is another thing.
P.S. If it is so difficult to explain a romance word, think how much it is to manage Caucasian roots!
I did only an hypothesis, “su due piedi” how we say in Italian. Far to pretend having given a demonstration. I know very well how difficult is to demonstrate a theory. But if you get “Le origini delle lingue neolatine” of Carlo Tagliavini, read please what he says about “llevar” and “llegar” (§ 47). Perhaps it may help.
ReplyDeleteAs interesting as it might be, I still don't see how could this be related to my theory, so I'd suggest we don't discuss this any further.
It seems to me that for demonstrating your hypothesis lacks the best:
1) that the Celt word was present in Iberia
This is demonstranda per demonstratum, as we don't have written evidence.
2) that that word was pronounced *lew-
This is how it's actually pronounced in Britonic.
3) why from a noun was formed a verb
By the same mechanisms Romance languages derived verbs from existing nouns.
4) why that *l- was become ll-
This has been already explained by Coromines et al.
5) that the meaning “plough”
The Celtic word means 'rudder', not 'plough'.
(the parallel with “gubernare” isn’t sustainable: it lacks the history of the word)
I disagree.
Also the exam of “plaumoratum” lacks any explication:
I've quoted Alinei's one.
1) A Rhaetic word? Evidently Plinius has latinized a local word, but was the original one?
So you don't trust him?
2) And why to section “plaumo-ratum”? Couldn’t we see in “oratum” the IE name of the plough?
But how you would then explain /o instead of /a/ in this word?
And plau- from IE *pleu- also “to move”
AFAIK it doesn't has that meaning, so please don't cheat with data.
in the meaning “mobile plough”?
But any plough is 'mobile', so this is absurd.
P.S. If it is so difficult to explain a romance word, think how much it is to manage Caucasian roots!
This is precisely because a difficult subject like this needs powerful brains, and most of them are engaged in other things, as they attract much more money.
Like for “llevar” we can do many hypotheses,
Most of them unsustainable.
but a scientific demonstration is another thing.
You forget than in historical linguistics we can't "prove" but only DISPROVE.
4) why that *l- was become ll-
ReplyDeleteThis has been already explained by Coromines et al.
No asterisk because the verb levar is attested in Old Spanish and it survived as fossilized expressions like levar anclas.
Thus the most conservative form has l- in despite its Catalan cognate llevar has an initial palatal (much of the sea-faring Spanish lexicon was in fact borrowed from Catalan: e.g. Spanish plegar velas, from Catalan plegar, instead of the native llegar 'to come').
Also notice that unlike Spanish, Catalan llevar doesn't mean 'to lead, to carry', as those meanings belong to portar.
This clearly disproves your idea that llevar isn't a native Spanish development but an interference with another verb. Your own obsession with pl- > ll- in Spanish has prevented you from seeing the actual facts.
I feel myself a friend of you all and don’t like this way to discuss, then I agree with you: “I'd suggest we don't discuss this any further”.
ReplyDeleteBut:
And plau- from IE *pleu- also “to move”
AFAIK it doesn't has that meaning, so please don't cheat with data.
“Another word for ‘swim’ is *pleu- where the meaning ‘swim’ is retained in Grk plé(w)ō and SKt plàvate, but other cognates include Oir luȉd ‘moves’, Lat pluit “it rains”, NE flow, OCS plovƍ ‘flow’ , Arm luanam ‘wash’, and Toch B plus- ‘float’” (Mallory-Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European etc. pp. 403-4).
Note: Oir luȉd ‘moves’, which anyway is linked with “to move’, Lat mouere.
I feel myself a friend of you all and don’t like this way to discuss, then I agree with you: “I'd suggest we don't discuss this any further”.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if I've been too harsh before.
“Another word for ‘swim’
'To swim' isn't exactly the same thing than 'to move'.
Note: Oir luȉd ‘moves’, which anyway is linked with “to move’, Lat mouere.
Please notice this meaning isn't attested elsewhere and also the Latin word has a different etymology.
According to Matasović's (where I coudn't find the Old Irish form), the Celtic reflex of IE *pleu- 'to swim, to float' is precisely *φlowjo-, *φlowjā 'rudder'.
But IMHO it makes sense the word 'plough' in other languages was also derived from this root, as a plough cuts through earth in the same way than a rudder cuts through water. So this would be a sea-faring word adapted in dry land.
This is explained very well in the paper of Peter Rowley-Conwy, Westward Ho! The Spread of Agriculture from Central Europe to the Atlantic, Current Anthropology, Volume 52, Number S4, October 2011
ReplyDelete(but published online on 13 V 2011), above all in “Cardial Colonists and Colonization” and it doesn’t seem in contrast with my theories.
According to Matasović's (where I coudn't find the Old Irish form), the Celtic reflex of IE *pleu- 'to swim, to float' is precisely *φlowjo-, *φlowjā 'rudder'.
ReplyDeleteBut these are nominal derivates from the verbal root *φlow-j-, apparently only attested in Goidelic (cfr. Greek pléō 'I sail' < *pléwō). Also the adduced Latin and Germanic cognates i Mallory-Adams belongs to a quasi-homonymous root *plōu- 'to pour, to wash'.
This is explained very well [...]
What's "this"? Please explain.
Very interesting article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/658368. perhaps Maju would like to devote it a post. Intrestingly, you can see a photograph of Irish people carrying pigs in curragh, a kind of boat. Who said Celts weren't good sailors?
ReplyDeleteAlso: A more recent suggestion is that Basque, normally regarded as unrelated to any other language, may in fact have connections with other linguistic isolates, including some languages spoken in the mountains of the Caucasus, and with Burushaski, spoken in northern Pakistan. Some of the suggested connections refer to domestic cattle, sheep, and goats, to cultivated cereals, and to milking and tillage. This could imply that Basque is Europe’s sole remnant of a pre-Indo-European language family that spread with the first agriculturalists (Bengtson 2009).
This is the core of the Vasco-Caucasian hypothesis and much in accordance with my own ideas.
I say that Celts are not known for their sailing abilities, what doesn't mean that they did not boat in absolute terms, specially once they absorbed the peoples of the Atlantic shores into their ethnic identity.
ReplyDeleteWhat is clear is that the Atlantic Bronze Area, which is the last remnant of Megalithic Sea connections was finally dismantled when Celts conquered West Iberia (from the Plateau, and this one from the Ebro). For all that is ranted about Iberia-Ireland/Britain connections, there is zero archaeological evidence in the times when the Celts are known to have been in either area: since the 7th century in Iberia and the 3rd century in the islands. Nothing!
I say that Celts are not known for their sailing abilities, what doesn't mean that they did not boat in absolute terms, specially once they absorbed the peoples of the Atlantic shores into their ethnic identity.
ReplyDeleteI written an article in my blog about the Celtic word for 'boat', which is of Vasco-Caucasian origin:
http://vasco-caucasian.blogspot.com/2011/03/boats-and-vessels.html
What is clear is that the Atlantic Bronze Area, which is the last remnant of Megalithic Sea connections was finally dismantled when Celts conquered West Iberia (from the Plateau, and this one from the Ebro). For all that is ranted about Iberia-Ireland/Britain connections, there is zero archaeological evidence in the times when the Celts are known to have been in either area: since the 7th century in Iberia and the 3rd century in the islands. Nothing!
IMHO the "traditional" view is totally wrong and the Atlantic Bronze was already Celtic-speaking. Also the actual distribution of historical Celtic languages (which includes at least two different groups in the Iberian Peninsula) indicates a deeper chronology.
@ Octavià
ReplyDeleteThis is explained very well [...]
What's "this"? Please explain.
I was referring to your last words: “But IMHO it makes sense the word 'plough' in other languages was also derived from this root, as a plough cuts through earth in the same way than a rudder cuts through water. So this would be a sea-faring word adapted in dry land”.
But you should read the paper, an open access, discussed also on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” on May this year. Also Maju took part in it.
@ Maju
“I say that Celts are not known for their sailing abilities”
But Genoese certainly were, and Italians too, beginning from Etruscans.
I cannot agree with what the authors say in Westward Ho!:
ReplyDelete"In conclusion, the Cardial phenomenon is an immeasurably sharper event than was understood 20 years ago. In its new guise it conforms with what we would expect from a migration: cultural derivation from northwest Italy, not the local Mesolithic; a very rapid spread, with the transplantation of the entire agricultural system; and the means in place to assure its spread and survival".
First of all the Cardial culture (and not "phenomenon") originates in the West Balcans, not Italy, which is also a destination. In Italy as in West Europe, most Cardial sites are characterized for local epipaleolithic toolkits, what implies demic continuity. There are Cardial colonies (specially in Valencia and Alacant provinces, and of course the islands) but not so many overall.
Second, Epicardial is still not clearly well fit with Cardial. There's a lot of uncertainty about the various Epicardials, some of which may be even older than Cardial (see here).
As I understand it, Cardium Pottery culture is just a backbone, so to say around which a lot of stuff happens, (beginning with most of Cardial proper being aboriginal semi-aculturized and not colonizing).
However I do find interesting that the paper mentions very old Neolithic dates (cereals) for Arenaza and Mirón caves, what may explain why Cantabrians and specifically Pasiegos have so high "Neolithic" genetic markers, while Basques east of the Nerbioi do not (Santimamiñe's date for Neolithic are of 1400 years later).
"Atlantic Bronze was already Celtic-speaking".
ReplyDeleteCan't be. IEs were still East of the Rhine, except for the Urnfield "tongue" to Catalonia. You have been too exposed to "paleolithic continuity nonsense" (no need to debunk: it's plainly idiotic) it seems to me. Or you may happen to believe that IE is an Neolithic tongue, in line with Renfrew (debunked above).
We cannot discuss Bronze or Iron Age if we disagree on the very origins of Indoeuropean, we cannot discuss anything but the origins and expansion of Indoeuropean itself. That is first, until we agree on the origins and expansion patterns of IE, on which you are terribly evasive, we cannot debate anything else.
But for you it seems easier not to deal with this key aspect. Spare me until you do.
I was referring to your last words: “But IMHO it makes sense the word 'plough' in other languages was also derived from this root, as a plough cuts through earth in the same way than a rudder cuts through water. So this would be a sea-faring word adapted in dry land”.
ReplyDeleteYes, I supposed that. But which is exactly your point? I still don't see it.
But you should read the paper, an open access, discussed also on “Dienekes’ Anthropology blog” on May this year. Also Maju took part in it.
As usual, you didn't include the link. Here it is: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/death-of-acculturation-as-model-for.html
"But Genoese certainly were, and Italians too, beginning from Etruscans".
ReplyDeleteBeginning from at least Cardium Pottery. All we may discuss about Cardium Pottery is related with Italy and the Sea (however they ultimate origin is in the Western Balcans, at the other side of the Adriatic Sea).
But in Italy again we find the Celts, of all the ethnic mosaic, in a mostly non-coastal area with no particular interest in sailing. Italics either don't seem to have been sailors until Romans decided consciously and politically to get into the naval arms race with Phoenicians, Greeks and Etruscans and copied ships from these ethnicities (and later from Illyrians too).
@ Octavià&Maju
ReplyDelete“But which is exactly your point?”
I have said many times that we can only make theories, but the answer will come from the aDNA. Of course I am waiting for the 20-22 October, when the genome of Ötzi with his Y will be published. I invite you all to do your hypothesis on www.worldfamilies.net. I did it.
For me fundamental is the origin of the haplogroup R1b1b2. You know that there was an ancient origin (Palaeolithic Franco-Cantabrian Refugium). The newest, and the most followed so far, is Neolithic Middle east or Asia Minor. I probably was the first, many years ago, to speak of an Italian Refugium (Younger Dryas Alpine zone): not only R1b1 etc, but also R1a/M420, many mt-s, amongst then my K1a… etc.
The diffusion of the Cardial people from Italy (autochthonous agriculturaists) is a part of this theory. Why to discuss? I think we all have to wait for the aDNA.
"Atlantic Bronze was already Celtic-speaking".
ReplyDeleteCan't be. IEs were still East of the Rhine, except for the Urnfield "tongue" to Catalonia.
Apparently, you forgot about the Old European Hydronymy (OEH) and the Italoid toponymy, both of them found in the Iberian Peninsula (I refer you to Villar's books for more details).
You have been too exposed to "paleolithic continuity nonsense" (no need to debunk: it's plainly idiotic) it seems to me.
LOL. No, it's you who has been infected with Vennemann's "Vasconic" virus. :-)
Of course, the PCT can't be accepted at face value but it still contains a strain of the truth.
Or you may happen to believe that IE is an Neolithic tongue, in line with Renfrew (debunked above).
IMHO, IE is part of a larger Mesolithic dialectal continuum once spoken in Eurasia.
We cannot discuss Bronze or Iron Age if we disagree on the very origins of Indoeuropean, we cannot discuss anything but the origins and expansion of Indoeuropean itself. That is first, until we agree on the origins and expansion patterns of IE, on which you are terribly evasive, we cannot debate anything else.
I disagree. The problem are your own pre-conceptions which associate some archaeological horizons with some languages.
But for you it seems easier not to deal with this key aspect. Spare me until you do.
I've already given you my answer: the historical IE languages are actually multi-layer, that is, the result of superposition of several language replacement processes since the Mesolithic until the Bronze Age.
IMHO, trying to explain the actual IE dialectal fragmentation as the result of a single expansion is as wrong as the immobilism of the PCT.
I have said many times that we can only make theories, but the answer will come from the aDNA. [...] The diffusion of the Cardial people from Italy (autochthonous agriculturaists) is a part of this theory. Why to discuss? I think we all have to wait for the aDNA.
ReplyDeleteAre you linking then the development of the word 'plough' in some European languages from the verb 'to sail'
because of Cardial culture expansion from Italy?
Why didn't you mention this in the first place? Excuse me, Gioiello, but you tend to compress (so to speak) your writings very much and so you left readers to "guess" many things you don't explictily mentioned. Perhaps if you could develop a little more your point, people would understood you with less effort from their part.
But in Italy again we find the Celts, of all the ethnic mosaic, in a mostly non-coastal area with no particular interest in sailing.
ReplyDeleteBut Celts certainly across the Atlantic, including the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay, usually called "Mar Cantábrico" by Spanish imperialists.
However I do find interesting that the paper mentions very old Neolithic dates (cereals) for Arenaza and Mirón caves, what may explain why Cantabrians and specifically Pasiegos have so high "Neolithic" genetic markers,
And more specifically, the E1b1b1b1 (E-M81) Y-chromosome haplogroup which has a high frequency among Berbers.
@ Octavià
ReplyDelete“Are you linking then the development of the word 'plough' in some European languages from the verb 'to sail' because of Cardial culture expansion from Italy?”
I didn’t mind on this. This could be a consequence, due to your observations. I did above all theories about Genetics and Genetics of the populations. Of course I did my studies in linguistics, above all the theory of the monogenesis of the language of Alfredo Trombetti, and certainly my knowledge in this field helped me for my theories about Genetics, but I don’t practice linguistics, but if someone incites me, I am always ready to give my contribute.
I don’t practice linguistics, but if someone incites me, I am always ready to give my contribute.
ReplyDeleteThanks Gioeillo, this statement tells me all about. I'd also recommend you read more recent bibliography on the subject, because the works you've quoted are largely outdated.
For me fundamental is the origin of the haplogroup R1b1b2.
"Fundamental" for what purpose? As I said, you tend to leave readers to guess what you actually mean.
@ Octavia
ReplyDelete“I'd also recommend you read more recent bibliography on the subject, because the works you've quoted are largely outdated”
I could say that I did good studies and I don’t know if the youngest did the same. Important is the method, if someone has one.
“"Fundamental" for what purpose?””
Of course the answer about the Refugium: if we’ll find in Italy Ötzi = R1b1b2-P312* or some subclade thought by many (Klyosov, Nordtvedt etc.) 2000 years old (Ötzi lived 5300YBP) etc. evidently there will be someone who was right and someone who was wrong.
Italy is in the loop but it's not the origin of Cardium Pottery. The fact that we can find E-V13 and I2a tells us about the West Balcans. G2a and J2 are also from the same wave surely.
ReplyDeleteA single Y-DNA won't tell much. Much less from Ötzi, who is of such a late time. And you don't have anything to support an origin of R1a in Italy of all places (it's from South Asia probably).
"Apparently, you forgot about the Old European Hydronymy (OEH) and the Italoid toponymy"...
ReplyDeleteApparently you forgot of archaeology.
"... the historical IE languages are actually multi-layer, that is, the result of superposition of several language replacement processes since the Mesolithic until the Bronze Age".
What?!
This is totally freaky. This is the paleolithic continuity nonsense hiding the name.
I have only one thing to say to IEPC freaks: get lost and do not come back ever. You are insulting.
You go to your blog and I stay at my blog. I do not want a single IEPC freak here. Is that clear?
“Are you linking then the development of the word 'plough' in some European languages from the verb 'to sail' because of Cardial culture expansion from Italy?”
ReplyDeleteI didn’t mind on this. This could be a consequence, due to your observations. I did above all theories about Genetics and Genetics of the populations.
But you should be aware that unless we could link Celts and Greeks (i.e. people *pleu- refers to sailing) with the Cardial culture (something extremely unlikely), this hypothsis has no sense.
Actually, these 'plough' words refer to the iron plough, an invention which rapidly diffused by much of the Europe north of the Alps. This new techonology was created by Iron Age people whose language, if not Celtic as Alinei thinks, would be at least a close relative.
I could say that I did good studies and I don’t know if the youngest did the same. Important is the method, if someone has one.
The problem is you don't "practice linguistics" (as yourself recognized), and practice is extremely importance for any kind of study, and specially languages.
For example, you made the crude mistake that Spanish ll- was "without exception" derived from Latin pl-. What else could I expect from someone who "did good studies"?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is totally freaky. This is the paleolithic continuity nonsense hiding the name.
ReplyDeleteBy no means. While PCT expliciyly negates language replacement and so predicates a kind of linguistic "immobilism", I think there actually were not one but several processes of this kind over an extended time period.
I have only one thing to say to IEPC freaks: get lost and do not come back ever. You are insulting. You go to your blog and I stay at my blog. I do not want a single IEPC freak here. Is that clear?
Are you sure you aren't confusing this with "IPCC" (Intergovernamental Panel on Climate Change)? :-))
I'd suggest you take some time outdoors and refresh your brain cells.
@ Octavià
ReplyDelete“For example, you made the crude mistake that Spanish ll- was "without exception" derived from Latin pl-. What else could I expect from someone who "did good studies"?”
I didn’t reply to you when you asked me, but I did mean: ll- is due to Latin Cl-, mostly pl- a few fl- and cl-. The theory of Corominas that it could be due to li- after diphthongization of -e- I should deepen. You of course know Spanish better than me, but why liebre isn’t *llebre or liendre isn’t *llendre or lienzo isn’t *llenzo?
Comments in this entry are closed. And seriously, Octavià, I do not like you, your "humor" nor your freaky "theories".
ReplyDelete