20 July 2011

Initial pl-,fl- in Basque

As it's well known, Basque abhors "muta cum liquida" clusters and thus we've got boronde, boronte < Latin fronte- and p(h)ereka, fereka 'stroke' from Romance *freca < Latin fricāre 'to rub'. 

There's however a number of words where Latin pl-, fl- have given Basque l-: 

Latin plācet 'it pleases' > Basque laket 'pleasure'
Latin plānu- 'flat' > Basque lau(n), leu(n), legun 'flat, smooth'
Latin plūma- 'feather' > Basque luma id.
Latin flamma- 'flame, fire' > Basque lama 'flame, heat'
Latin flore- 'flower' > Basque lore id.

The evolution fl- > l-1 can also be found in Spanish words such as lacio < *flaccidu- 'flacid' and the personal name Laín < Flavinus. IMHO this could be explained if these labials were realized as a voiceless bilabial fricative [φ] like in Proto-Celtic2, where IE *pl- became *φl- and later l- in Celtic languages. Of course, we should expect the same evolution in genuine Celtic loanwords in Basque3:

Celtic *φlāro- 'floor' > Basque larre 'meadow'
Celtic *φletro- 'hide, leather' > Basque larru, narru 'skin'

IMHO, the realization of /f/ as [φ] (which in fact is the usual pronounciation in most of Northern Spain (also including Basque-speaking areas) would explain the aspiration of Latin f- as h- in Gascon and Spanish4.  

In Basque, this consonant disappears at word-initial, mostly before back vowels, where also /p/was realized as [φ]:

Romance *fīco 'fig' [φiko] > Basque iko id.
Latin fīlu- 'thread' [φilu] > Basque iru id.
Romance *fondo 'bottom' [φondo] > Basque ondo 'side, bottom' 
Romance *fongo 'fungus' [φongo] > Basque onddo 'mushroom'
Latin fōrma- 'mould' [φorma] > Basque horma, orma 'wall'
Latin frāga- 'strawberry' [φ(a)raga] > Basque arraga, araga id.5
Romance pollo 'chicken' [φoλo] > Basque oilo 'hen'
______________________
1 However, in most words the cluster fl- became assimilated to pl-, then palatalized in Spanish and Portuguese, as in flamma- > Spanish llama, Portuguese chama. 
2 In Proto-Celtic, PIE *p became a voiceless bilabial fricative *φ (then lost in the daughter Celtic languages) at word-initial and intervocally, but *b in other contexts.
3 In fact, there's ample evidence of Celtic toponymy in the Westernmost part of the Basque country, suggesting the area was previously inhabited by Celtic speakers. 
4 Unlike Gascon, Spanish never aspirates clusters fl-, fr- (see note 1). Also Castilian alone doesn't aspirate f- when followed by /w/ (resulting from diphtongation of Latin short /o/), hence fonte- > fuente. However, this doesn't happen in Cantabrian and Eastern Asturian varieties, where we find /xwénte/ instead.
5 In the variant arraga, [φr] evolved to a trill [rr], which then adquired a prothetic vowel. Compare Gascon ahraga

20 comments:

  1. The etymology of leun, lau an legun does not match. Planu should produce lanu (unattested). It should not produce anything meaning "smooth" (leun). Leun typically refers to clothes or maybe skin, you never use leun for a landscape, as can happen with English smooth. Leun is more like tender, tactilely smooth, and not just "not rough" in general.

    I never heard "lama" ("gar" instead) but I'll take your word for it. The logic of the pl- > l- is in any case correct.

    But only for the Latin words. The "Celtic words" are non-attested asterisk-bearing speculated proto-words and the parsimony of the phonetic change is as broken as in the plānu- case.

    The change from R/TR into RR is inadmissible as it is the change of meaning from floor into meadow (go figure). Larre and larru may be related but internally so in Basque.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The etymology of leun, lau an legun does not match. Planu should produce lanu (unattested).
    Not really, because as you should know, intervocalic -n- regularly vanishes in Basque, so we've got *φlanu > *lanu > lau~ > laun.

    Leun typically refers to clothes or maybe skin, you never use leun for a landscape, as can happen with English smooth. Leun is more like tender, tactilely smooth, and not just "not rough" in general.
    Although certainly its semantic is more restricted than in English, this doesn't necessarily invalidate the etymology. However, an alternative derivation from some reflex of Celtic *slimono- 'polished, smooth' could be also possible.

    I never heard "lama" ("gar" instead) but I'll take your word for it.
    It's a dialectal word found in dictionaries.

    The logic of the pl- > l- is in any case correct.
    Then do you agree this is the signature of a Celtic substrate in Basque?

    The "Celtic words" are non-attested asterisk-bearing speculated proto-words
    I strongly disagree. Reconstructed doesn't equal to "non-attested". Protoforms don't come out of the blue (Spanish "de la nada").

    The change from R/TR into RR is inadmissible
    Why so? Please explain.

    as it is the change of meaning from floor into meadow
    Then why Old Breton lor is, glossed as equivalent to Latin solum? Or why do we got Basque sor(h)o 'meadow' from the same word?

    Larre and larru may be related but internally so in Basque.
    I'm afraid they aren't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Notice also that Celtic 'leather' was also borrowed by Germanic, where it coexisted with the native word with initial f-, reflected in Spanish fieltro.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Then do you agree this is the signature of a Celtic substrate in Basque?"

    Not at all. The clear pl->l- forms are Latin loans, not Celtic.

    "Reconstructed doesn't equal to "non-attested"".

    Sorry to state the obvious again but reconstructed means unattested. Even if it is a good reconstruction, it is in any case the product of a modern human mind and not factual documentation.

    "Protoforms don't come out of the blue"...

    I don't care how much thought have been put at: they are still unattested.

    "Please explain".

    Flap into trill? And then, inconsistently with this one TR into trill? Not consistent, very forced.

    "Then why do we got Old Breton lor, glossed as equivalent to Latin solum?"

    I have no idea. I find hard to decipher what you mean with this sentence nor how is it related with the quote from me you made it follow: "The change from R/TR into RR is inadmissible". I just hope that you do not mean that lor and solum are phylogenetically related. At least on first sight the do not seem so.

    "Or Basque sor(h)o 'meadow'"

    Meadow has a peculiar meaning of by a river (not necessarily but typically), Sp. "vega". If you mean field, pasture, say so.

    Whatever the case, soro might come from solum or not. IMO it could equally be from Basque sor(tu) (to create, to give birth, to generate) or any other sor- beginning word like sori(tu) (to harden the hands), sorots(i) (to watch, guard). The options are wide open.

    "I'm afraid they aren't".

    You always oppose internal Basque relations because you disdain Basque as an internally consistent language. All are to at least some extent, so why Basque not? Your prejudice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not at all. The clear pl->l- forms are Latin loans, not Celtic.
    But Celtic-speaking people who became Latinized would have replicated the same sound shift which happened in their vernacular language. Do you understand?

    Sorry to state the obvious again but reconstructed means unattested. Even if it is a good reconstruction, it is in any case the product of a modern human mind and not factual documentation.
    I'm affraid historical linguistics can't do without them.

    Flap into trill? And then, inconsistently with this one TR into trill? Not consistent, very forced.
    Actaully it's quite simply. First t was lenied into r, hence producing a geminate rr which became a trill.

    Whatever the case, soro might come from solum or not.
    The fact this iluustrates how the meaning 'meadow' can evolve from 'floor'.

    You always oppose internal Basque relations because you disdain Basque as an internally consistent language. All are to at least some extent, so why Basque not? Your prejudice.
    No, your ignorance. You tend to link semantically unrelated words which sound vageuly similar. That's all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "But Celtic-speaking people who became Latinized would have replicated the same sound shift which happened in their vernacular language. Do you understand?"

    No. You have not provided any examples of that. In fact you have provided examples of allegedly Celtic proto-words beginning with pl-/fl- (a bit unsure of what the "phi" character means but probably both, right?).

    So I do not understand, really. I would apologize but I'd say it's your fault if anyone's - so no apologies here.

    "I'm affraid historical linguistics can't do without them".

    You should not abuse them and you should always double check with real life examples. Many proto-words (or proto-forms, as you prefer to call them) are at least questionable, debatable, so it's like building on moving sands.

    "No, your ignorance".

    You just quoted in my blog a Catalan text on Coromines where it says 'Basque', 'Basque', 'Basque' and 'Vasconic'... when dealing with Central Pyrenean pre-Romance linguistic reality up to the year 1000 (it's 13th century in nearby Huesca, so this is probably a conservative estimate).

    Other linguists do not try to split ancient Basque into several languages, regardless of whether there exist isoglosses or not (I guess they existed as they still exist now).

    ReplyDelete
  7. No. You have not provided any examples of that. In fact you have provided examples of allegedly Celtic proto-words beginning with pl-/fl- (a bit unsure of what the "phi" character means but probably both, right?).
    In Proto-Celtic, IE *p became (at word-initial and intervocally) a bilabial voiceless fricative (IPA symbol), then lost in the daughter languages. This is the so-called "loss" of IE *p in Celtic which probably you might already know about.

    Do you see my point now?

    Many proto-words (or proto-forms, as you prefer to call them) are at least questionable, debatable, so it's like building on moving sands.
    Have you any substantial reasons to question the ones I've quoted?

    Other linguists do not try to split ancient Basque into several languages, regardless of whether there exist isoglosses or not (I guess they existed as they still exist now).
    So what? They have their own interests which surely different form mine.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In Proto-Celtic, IE *p became (at word-initial and intervocally) a bilabial voiceless fricative *φ (IPA symbol), then lost in the daughter languages. This is the so-called "loss" of IE *p in Celtic which probably you might already know about.
    I've just added a footnote, as many readers won't be acquainted with this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Do you see my point now?"

    Yes but not because it seems unlikely that Basque entered in any form of intense contact with Proto-Celtic (Celtiberian is already fully formed Celtic, as is, of course, Gaulish).

    Also I disagree with other aspects of your alleged transformation as I said above. So no: the Celtic connection is nowhere to be seen, at least not in this example.

    "Have you any substantial reasons to question the ones I've quoted?"

    Yes, that you don't mention real life words that could corroborate the existence of these proto-forms. It is you who is making the claim, so the burden of proof is on your side.

    Or, in other words, I do not feel like working gratis for Octavià (again) just because he has "found" two (only two!) alleged proto-words that do not even transform regularly (only two words and each one is transformed in a totally different way) in the alleged Basque derivatives. I find all very feeble no matter what aspect of it I look at.

    "They have their own interests which surely different form mine".

    Science is not a matter of interest but of truth, of facts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes but not because it seems unlikely that Basque entered in any form of intense contact with Proto-Celtic (Celtiberian is already fully formed Celtic, as is, of course, Gaulish).
    As I said earlier, my point is those Celtic speakers would have adapted Latin words to their own language, where these clusters didn't exist at word initial.

    Also I disagree with other aspects of your alleged transformation as I said above. So no: the Celtic connection is nowhere to be seen, at least not in this example.
    Have you any better alternative explanation? I'd like to hear it.

    Yes, that you don't mention real life words that could corroborate the existence of these proto-forms. It is you who is making the claim, so the burden of proof is on your side.
    I've quoted these Proto-Celtic from Matasović's dictionary. The relevant data is there and you might as well take a look at it if you were genuinely interested, instead of behaving like a troll.

    Science is not a matter of interest but of truth, of facts.
    I always stick to facts, unlike other people who have their own agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I hope you didn't take my above remark as being too harsh, but you're asking me for actual data too often when in fact I had already given you the references.

    I also thank you for your feedback, which has helped me to improve my article.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Have you any better alternative explanation?"

    Yes, larre/larra and larru are Basque words of unknown origin but probably related internally (archaic lost root larr-?) and not via "proto-Celtic".

    Just hunching here but larru could even be the -o proximal variant of larra ('my land' for 'skin'), both from, as said, and archaic root lar. We also have larri (sick, weak specially when throwing it up or having diarrhea).

    What follows is highly conjectural but you asked for it (literally):

    Consider please Latin 'lar' (hearth, by extension: home and home-guarding spirit) as possible cognate of 'larre'. 'Lar' has no known IE etymology. True that it implies flap<>trill change but we know so little about Ligurian and other pre-IE Italian languages that whatever.

    Another related word could be '*lendh-' (land), only attested in Western IE: Slavic, Baltic, Germanic and Celtic. It is therefore not true PIE but at best PWIE and hence surely borrowed from substrate (Danubian possibly but Vasconic could be as well).

    Another possible related word is '*letr-' (leather), only attested in Germanic and Celtic and which might be related to 'larru' by similar ways.

    "I also thank you for your feedback, which has helped me to improve my article".

    You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, larre/larra and larru are Basque words of unknown origin but probably related internally (archaic lost root larr-?) and not via "proto-Celtic".
    I don't see any plausible semantic relationship between them. As always, you try to link words which sound similar but semantically are worlds apart. This approach is so amateurish as to deserve further comments from my part.

    Another related word could be '*lendh-' (land), only attested in Western IE: Slavic, Baltic, Germanic and Celtic. It is therefore not true PIE but at best PWIE and hence surely borrowed from substrate (Danubian possibly but Vasconic could be as well).
    Not "Vasconic" but a Vasco-Caucasian loanword from the Central Europe Neolithic. The root has been reconstructed by Starostin as PNC *lhemdɮɮwɨ 'earth'. Notice also Basque landa is a straightforward Celtic loanword.

    Another possible related word is '*letr-' (leather), only attested in Germanic and Celtic and which might be related to 'larru' by similar ways.
    But this is turn derivated from PIE *pel- 'skin' with loss of *p- in Celtic, so Germanic and Basque must be loanwords from Celtic.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "My floor" or "my soil" could well be metaphors for "skin", which eventually stuck. Or even vice versa (the skin as the field). This is very difficult to discern if we admit that the origins of Basque are lost in the depths of time and we have no documentation until very recent times (by comparison).

    The words are in any case similarly sounding. And do not forget larri.

    "Not "Vasconic" but a Vasco-Caucasian loanword from the Central Europe Neolithic".

    Could be.

    "Notice also Basque landa is a straightforward Celtic loanword".

    Celtic or Germanic? I'm inclined to a Germanic loan in Merovingian times. It's quite straightforward. While Basque contact with Celts was minimal, the contact with the Franks was quite intense (and only with Charlemagne was Latin instituted as official language of the Empire - but we kicked Carolingian ass then at Roncevaux, so it doesn't matter anymore). Another possible source for the world 'landa' are the Vikings who captured Baiona and Bordeaux for a long time.

    "But this is turn derivated from PIE *pel- 'skin'"

    Starostin disagrees (at least I could not find any mention of any such etymology).

    "... with loss of *p- in Celtic, so Germanic and Basque must be loanwords from Celtic".

    A quite forced conclusion only supported by your bias.

    Considering the IE/Basque sound divergence in the case of *letr-/larru, and the lack of support by Starostin for the *pel- etymology (very forced as it's not pl- and lacks the R sound), I am still inclined for a pre-IE substrate word.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The words are in any case similarly sounding.
    But this doesn't make them related. Don't forget this.

    Celtic or Germanic?
    Considering the amount of Celtic loanwords in Basque and its attestation in French, a Celtic (Gaulish) origin is much more likely.

    "But this is turn derivated from PIE *pel- 'skin'"

    Starostin disagrees (at least I could not find any mention of any such etymology).

    The PIE database in Starostin's dite was compiled by his colleague Nikolayev and it's full of errors like this.

    "... with loss of *p- in Celtic, so Germanic and Basque must be loanwords from Celtic".

    A quite forced conclusion only supported by your bias.

    Not really. LOL.

    Considering the IE/Basque sound divergence in the case of *letr-/larru,
    Which I've already explained.

    and the lack of support by Starostin for the *pel- etymology and lacks the R sound), I am still inclined for a pre-IE substrate word.
    Have you tried the to link to Matasović dictionary I gave you earlier? There you'll find *fletro- 'hide, leather'.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Have you tried the to link to Matasović dictionary I gave you earlier?"

    Sorry but I do not have memory of any link.

    "Which I've already explained".

    Sorry but I have no memory of any such explanation. The *pel- short sentence explains nothing re. leather/larru.

    "Considering the amount of Celtic loanwords in Basque"...

    Almost zero.

    "... and its attestation in French, a Celtic (Gaulish) origin is much more likely".

    French as its name says is the Romance of the Franks, a Germanic people. Also how certain are you that lande in French has not a Gascon origin? The meaning in French is uncultivated land (usually the Gascon Landes), the meaning in Celtic is enclosure, the menaing in Germanic is land and the meaning in Basque is pasture. Each is different but Germanic land includes them all.

    The main problem for a Celtic loan to Germanic is that it'd need to be from the Urnfields period. Instead Celts have been influenced by expansive Germans since c. 800 BCE till present day.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sorry but I do not have memory of any link.
    I posted in your own blog, so please search for it.

    Sorry but I have no memory of any such explanation.
    You could find it if you've read more above: First t was lenied into a flap r, hence producing a geminate rr which became a trill.

    BTW, do you usually smoke joints? It's well known marihuana has a dramatic impact on short-time memory. :-)

    At least you owe me an apology for "forgetting" what I post.
    "Considering the amount of Celtic loanwords in Basque"...

    Almost zero.

    Sorry, but I disagree.

    he meaning in French is uncultivated land (usually the Gascon Landes), the meaning in Celtic is enclosure,
    This is completely wrong.

    The main problem for a Celtic loan to Germanic
    I don't think Germanic borrowed the word from Celtic nor I said so.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Unless you've got something new after checking the references I've given you, I'll close this discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "BTW, do you usually smoke joints?"

    Not these years. But you must be crazy to pretend that I remember ALL you post (which can make a whole book daily, even if of low quality), when, btw you do not remember what I post (nor I usually pretend you do).

    I'm through with you your claim that levar is of Celtic origin when it's so clearly from Latin origin is outraging.

    ReplyDelete
  20. But you must be crazy to pretend that I remember ALL you post (which can make a whole book daily, even if of low quality)
    Sorry, I forgot you've got your ass tied to the seat (so to speak), and so you post tons of things everyday, mostly junk but sometimes interesting stuff. :-)

    I'm through with you your claim that levar is of Celtic origin when it's so clearly from Latin origin is outraging.
    I think you didn't understand what I said. IMHO there're two homonym words levar in Spanish and Portuguese, one from Latin (shared with other Romance languages), and another one from Celtic (not found elsewhere).

    ReplyDelete