tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post6814226830673558936..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Basque linguistics: Frank criticizes LakarraMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-78059752321898474752013-06-03T14:56:08.708+02:002013-06-03T14:56:08.708+02:00This sounds far fetched to me, sincerely. One of t...This sounds far fetched to me, sincerely. One of the main errors of Lakarra is to imagine that polysyllabic words derive from root monosyllabic forms, as if language would have been invented just a few thousand years ago and not have hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of years of background. Most probably something as emotionally intense and basic as 'tear' was always a fundamental word on its own right, with maybe the occasional exception and therefore not related to any other fundamental concept since the night of time. It should be in Swadesh lists along with other fundamental words like 'hand' or 'blood' or 'we' or 'walk'... Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-88044304957449032532013-06-03T14:46:47.976+02:002013-06-03T14:46:47.976+02:00He doesn't even seem able to explain the loss ...He doesn't even seem able to explain the loss of initial la- at all. <br /><br />I'd rather be tempted to link (if anything at all) 'negar' with that PIE '*dakru' you mention, although it'd require some phonemic shifts, they seem coherent on first sight: I would hypothesize a shared proto-word like maybe *mækaR for both terms. <br /><br />*mækaR → *bakR' → *dakru (consistent with IE tendency to suppress vowels forming tr, kr, gr, kl, gl, br, bl etc.)<br />*mækaR → *nekar' → negar (consistent with Basque tendency to retain such vowels or even insert them, suppressing kr, tr, gr, kl, gl, br, bl, etc.)<br /><br />I'm no linguist though but I'm tempted by the idea of a very remote Basque-PIE connection on several reasons. If real, it seems reasonably normal that a shallow linguist like Lakarra could feel some connections but be unable to explain them properly because such a remote connection is beyond their imagination. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-37526509750586563292013-06-03T14:22:06.889+02:002013-06-03T14:22:06.889+02:00Heck, if I were a linguist (which I am not), I wou...Heck, if I were a linguist (which I am not), I would derive this from something like [dl]ac[jr]-ougk --- the lactating eye. Here, [ld] and [rj] are some fricatives that are intermediate to the indicated consonants.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-60177839434609992892013-06-03T14:09:52.765+02:002013-06-03T14:09:52.765+02:00*(la)grima (Sp. lágrima: tear; grima: coll. pity) ...<i>*(la)grima (Sp. lágrima: tear; grima: coll. pity) > *girma > *girna > *nirga > nigar </i><br /><br />This one is particularly hysterically funny. Does he really think "la" is a prefix? It used to be "da", as in PIE *dáḱru- --> dacrima --> lacrima (the latter two, Latin). Germanic also has preserved the leading d/t sound: <i>Engl.</i> tear, <i>Germ.</i> Träne.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.com