29 December 2010

A confusion of rhotics

Most personal names and theonyms found in Latin inscriptions from the old region of Aquitaine correspond to an early form of Basque commonly referred as Proto-Basque by Vascologists. However, some of these names have been wrongly interpreted due to an imperfect reading of rhotics: while the flap /r/ <r> is usually written as RH, the trill /ŕ/ <rr> can be either R or RR. Thus reading R as /r/ instead of the actual /ŕ/ is a mistake many Vascologists have made.

For example, the Aquitanian theonym HERAVSCORRITSEHE, usually interpreted as containing a first member herauś corresponding to modern Basque herauts 'boar', but this is inexact. Firstly, this word is actually one of the variants of a word *enauś(i), *inauś(i) whose meaning is 'heat of sow' or 'sow/female boar in heat' and whose modern forms1 display two alternative results from a former *n2. The correct reading is heŕaus, which corresponds to modern Basque errauts 'ash' (a compound of erre 'to burn' and hauts 'dust')3.

Another example is the anthroponym LAVRCO, whose first element4 is commonly interpreted as the numeral lau(r) '4' (with a flap /r/), when it's actually lauŕ (with a trill /ŕ/). This corresponds to modern Basque labur 'short'5, so in this case the Aquitanian form corresponds to Iberian and not to Proto-Basque6. 
__________________________________
1 herause, eresu, (h)erüsi, heusi, iñaus, iraus, i(h)ausi, irausi, irusi.
2 According to our own interpretation, the regular shift -n- > -0- in Basque (as well as in Gascon and Portuguese) is consequence of an adstrate influence, while the comparatively rare -n- > -r- is part of its own Iberian pedigree.
3 This was first proposed by Hugo  Schuchardt.
4 Also found in Iberian anthroponyms. The second element is the diminutive suffix -ko.
5 The form laur is only found in the Baztanese dialect.
6 Iberian has *bu > u while Basque has *bo > o.

4 comments:

  1. I do not think you can jump to such conclusions with so little info. Writing "strategies" vary first of all: there were no linguistic academies back then establishing standard rules and, even if there were standard references, only the erudite would really have knowledge of them.

    Today for example flap and thrill R are written the same when at the end of word or before another consonant, you could not tell any difference from written form alone.

    Besides "heravs" is mor parsimoniously read as modern "heraus", rather than the quite forced "enaus".

    As for "laur" it is probably true that is only attested in Baztanese but it is also fossilized in "laurden" (fourth, fractional) and some other forms.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi, Maju!

    Today for example flap and thrill R are written the same when at the end of word or before another consonant, you could not tell any difference from written form alone.

    But this is a modern ortographic convention. The problem is that apparently many Vascologists extrapolate it to Aquitanian inscriptions.

    Besides "heravs" is mor parsimoniously read as modern "heraus", rather than the quite forced "enaus".

    My point is this word should be read as heŕauś (modern Basque (h)errauts), with trill rhotic. This is a very different word from herauts (with flap rhotic), actually a variant of a word which can be reconstructed in Proto-Basque as *enauś, *inauś with a nasal n.

    As for "laur" it is probably true that is only attested in Baztanese but it is also fossilized in "laurden" (fourth, fractional) and some other forms.

    Baztanese laur is a dialect variant of common Basque labur 'short', also with trill rhotic! This word corresponds to Iberian lauŕ, which is the form actually found in the inscription. By contrast, Basque lau(r) '4' has a flap rhotic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course it's modern orthography (I'm not aware that Latin made a distinction between R and RR, though Spanish, Italian and other modern languages do - and this might come from somewhere - you tell me).

    While I see why you can doubt the modern-like reading, I do not see how can you jump automatically to the opposite interpretation. And I do not see how do you prefer to read errauts, without H and no chance of having it etymologically (erre does not have H, never had it, nor alleged proto-H K/G), meaning "heat" instead of heraus, meaning "boar" (which is a much more logical component of personal or divine names, specially as we know of many other such animal-based names).

    "Baztanese laur is a dialect variant of common Basque labur 'short', also with trill rhotic! This word corresponds to Iberian lauŕ, which is the form actually found in the inscription. By contrast, Basque lau(r) '4' has a flap rhotic".

    I do not know about the Baztanese laur, to be honest. If it means "four" it should not be from labur, "short", because it makes no sense. If so, it should be interpreted as a local phonetic change (there are zillions of those, believe me), maybe influenced by words such as labur or lur, but not derived from them directly.

    I can agree that archaic Basque *laur should have a flap R because we see it in laurogei (eighty) and such.

    Still we do not have any evidence that single R had to be read as you propose (as thrill R), it could well be flap R or it could oscillate in its reading depending on the author's best intention, which can vary.

    Salud.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of course it's modern orthography (I'm not aware that Latin made a distinction between R and RR, though Spanish, Italian and other modern languages do - and this might come from somewhere - you tell me).

    Remember that although the inscriptions are written in the Latin script, the language isn't Latin but Vasconic.

    While I see why you can doubt the modern-like reading, I do not see how can you jump automatically to the opposite interpretation. And I do not see how do you prefer to read errauts, without H and no chance of having it etymologically (erre does not have H, never had it, nor alleged proto-H K/G), meaning "heat" instead of heraus, meaning "boar" (which is a much more logical component of personal or divine names, specially as we know of many other such animal-based names).

    As far as I can tell, Aquitanian inscriptions use RH to represent the flap /r/, as in BERHAXS (modern Basque beratz). Also you have to bear in mind that modern herauts comes from an earlier *enauś, where /n/ shifted to /r/. However, as we don't know the precise chronology of this shift (it might predate the inscriptions), there's still room for some doubt.

    I do not know about the Baztanese laur, to be honest. If it means "four" it should not be from labur, "short", because it makes no sense.

    As I said, this laur (with trill rhotic) is a variant of labur 'short'. Nothing to do with the numeral '4'.

    If so, it should be interpreted as a local phonetic change (there are zillions of those, believe me), maybe influenced by words such as labur or lur, but not derived from them directly.

    I disagree. As I said, the Iberian form is lauŕ, with the usual loss of /b/ before /u/. Thus Baztanese agrees with Iberian. :-)

    ReplyDelete