Como es bien sabido, el castellano arroyo es una forma masculina derivada del latín hispánico (Plinio) arrugia 'galería de mina', un conducto artificial por donde circulaba el agua al objeto de lavar el mineral1. Lo que ya no es tan conocido es que una forma emparentada *rūga es el verdadero origen del portugués rua y francés rue 'calle, calleja'2, erróneamente atribuído por el romanista Meyer-Lübke (REW 7426) al latin rūga 'arruga'3.
De la forma diminutiva *rūgula deriva el gascón arrrolha, rolha, garrolha 'arroyo, cavidad, canal', prestado al euskera arroil, erroila 'canal; barranco; cavidad; raya del pelo'.
En mi opinión, todas estas formas provienen de una lengua vasco-caucásica pero no vascónica a la que llamo cantábrico. La etimología es a partir del PNC *jɦerqqwɨ (˜ -o:) 'ladera; barranco, trinchera', que en euskera nativo da erreka 'barranco, lecho de río o arroyo; arroyo; surco; raya del pelo'. En las lenguas hispánicas encontramos cognatos en portugués rego, asturiano riego, catalán rec, castellano regato 'riachuelo; canal de riego'.
Aunque algunos linguistas han sugerido para estas palabras una etimología céltica a partir de *φrikā 'surco de arado' (latín porca)4, hay que rechazarla por razones semánticas como hace Corominas. En este sentido, el parecido con el antiguo eslavo eclesiástico rĕka 'río' (cuya ascendencia IE es dudosa) parece algo más que una simple anécdota.
De la forma diminutiva *rūgula deriva el gascón arrrolha, rolha, garrolha 'arroyo, cavidad, canal', prestado al euskera arroil, erroila 'canal; barranco; cavidad; raya del pelo'.
En mi opinión, todas estas formas provienen de una lengua vasco-caucásica pero no vascónica a la que llamo cantábrico. La etimología es a partir del PNC *jɦerqqwɨ (˜ -o:) 'ladera; barranco, trinchera', que en euskera nativo da erreka 'barranco, lecho de río o arroyo; arroyo; surco; raya del pelo'. En las lenguas hispánicas encontramos cognatos en portugués rego, asturiano riego, catalán rec, castellano regato 'riachuelo; canal de riego'.
Aunque algunos linguistas han sugerido para estas palabras una etimología céltica a partir de *φrikā 'surco de arado' (latín porca)4, hay que rechazarla por razones semánticas como hace Corominas. En este sentido, el parecido con el antiguo eslavo eclesiástico rĕka 'río' (cuya ascendencia IE es dudosa) parece algo más que una simple anécdota.
__________________________
1 Este método era especialmente usado en las minas de oro, hasta el punto que los romanos perforaron una montaña (Montefurado) y desviaron a través de ella el río Sil.
2 Meyer-Lübke cita también las formas ruga (dialectos sud-itálicos), arruga (campidorés) y carruga (lucano). Y en euskera encontramos el vizcaíno arruga 'plaza, mercado'.
3 Coromines acepta esta etimología hasta el punto de afirmar que "vistas desde lejos, las calles de una localidad semejan arrugas". Sin comentarios.
4 Del PIE *perk´- 'surco', que en mi opinión proviene del PNC *ɦwə:rqqe: 'línea de los montes; límite' > euskera hegi.
2 Meyer-Lübke cita también las formas ruga (dialectos sud-itálicos), arruga (campidorés) y carruga (lucano). Y en euskera encontramos el vizcaíno arruga 'plaza, mercado'.
3 Coromines acepta esta etimología hasta el punto de afirmar que "vistas desde lejos, las calles de una localidad semejan arrugas". Sin comentarios.
4 Del PIE *perk´- 'surco', que en mi opinión proviene del PNC *ɦwə:rqqe: 'línea de los montes; límite' > euskera hegi.
Don't you think that arroil (arro-il), meaning 'foz', 'creek', is more genuine Basque forms of your arrugia than erreka, which appears to derive from erre (to burn, in the sense of to erode)? Also arroil would provide a nice root for Spanish arroyo.
ReplyDeleteAlso I am not sure if erreka is not an IE loan (vide 'reka': river in southern Slavic dialects) - if not, then reka should be a Vasconic substrate word but otherwise I can only find gore/gora and very few placenames (Ibar river in Kosovo) as Vasconic in the West Balcanic area.
In any case I think it is a lot easier for a word meaning river, creek to be preserved than one that means mine gallery. It may be preserved however in "riego" (and maybe "rue"). However I have seen also 'rue' to be derived from Lat. ruta (ultimately from Greek ῥυτή).
In any case I have a feeling of a circularly repeating root here, one that somehow indicates flow in all the IE meanings at least and therefore related to river, río and specially Greek ruthos (water flow, as in periruthos: island, or peninsula). It'd be different from arrugia and arroil/arroyo however.
Don't you think that arroil (arro-il), meaning 'foz', 'creek', is more genuine Basque forms of your arrugia than erreka
ReplyDeleteBasque arroil is a Romance loanword parallel to Gascon (g)arolha.
Also arroil would provide a nice root for Spanish arroyo.
No, the Spanish word is a straighformward derivation from arrugia.
Also I am not sure if erreka is not an IE loan (vide 'reka': river in southern Slavic dialects)
But the Slavic word has no plausible IE etymology.
if not, then reka should be a Vasconic substrate word but otherwise I can only find gore/gora and very few placenames (Ibar river in Kosovo) as Vasconic in the West Balcanic area.
But Slavic gora 'mountain' is a genuine IE word whose resemblance to Basque gora 'high' is a chance one.
However I have seen also 'rue' to be derived from Lat. ruta (ultimately from Greek ῥυτή).
Certainly not, because in that case we'd have *roue, not rue.
In any case I think it is a lot easier for a word meaning river, creek to be preserved than one that means mine gallery.
But in Romance languages none of these words actually mean 'river', but only in Basque as a secondary development (the usual words for 'river' are ibai and uholde). Their original meaning must have been 'ravine' (natural) or 'channel' (artificial).
Arroyo sounds exactly as arroil- and mean almost the same, so it's absurd to say that they are unrelated. It is not present (AFAIK) in Romances other than Castilian either and, as it is well known, Castilian is a Romance coalesced at the very edge of Basque speaking areas (not the only one anyhow), so it having Basque influences is something expected.
ReplyDelete"Basque arroil is a Romance loanword parallel to Gascon (g)arolha".
How curious, Gascon and not, say Catalan or Italian or Romanian! How curious that it is only found in a "Basque Romance"... again.
"Certainly not, because in that case we'd have *roue, not rue".
Unless the Galician-Portuguese (Leonese?) form "rua" is older and at the root of French "rue". Ruta produces rua quite straightforwardly, and rua can perfectly produce rue.
"But in Romance languages none of these words actually mean 'river'"...
Precisely. That is why they are more likely to be derived and not root forms. I meant (it seems it's not clear) the Basque word arroil and the related Castilian form arroyo, which are almost the same word. The meaning varies but only slightly so.
"but only in Basque as a secondary development (the usual words for 'river' are ibai and uholde)".
Arroil is not river but creek, "foz" in the Spanish of Navarre. This makes sense if it has a Basque etymology because arro is the river basin, the hollow, a "yin" concept different from ibai, which is a "yang" concept (related probably to ibili (to walk) and bide (way, path)).
Uholde tipically means "flood", river is at best a second meaning. It is etymologically clear that means "by the water" (ur-alde, where R>H as in many other ur- derived words: uharte, etc.). Uralde (and Ugalde) also exists but only as toponym/surname AFAIK.
Ibai: river, erreka: creek, rivulet (Sp. arroyo, riachuelo), arroil: creek, gorge (Sp. foz, garganta). Gorges are however sufficiently similar conceptually to creeks to have mutated meaning when it became a Castilian word (arroyo).
BTW, just noticed that you began writing in Spanish (you used English earlier), any reason?
ReplyDeleteArroyo sounds exactly as arroil- and mean almost the same, so it's absurd to say that they are unrelated.
ReplyDeleteOf course they're related, but not the way you think. Spanish arroyo is derived from *arrugio, an unattested masculine form of arrugia. Of course, this a- is a prothetic vowel like the ones commonly found in Basque and Gascon nowadays.
It is not present (AFAIK) in Romances other than Castilian
Wrong. We've got Gascon rolha, (g)arrolha, from an earlier *rūgula or something similar, as the cluster g'l gives a palatal lateral [λ] in many Romances (but not in Spanish, where it would be **ruja).
How curious, Gascon and not, say Catalan or Italian or Romanian! How curious that it is only found in a "Basque Romance"... again.
You apparently forget Basque is only what remain of a larger dialectal continuum. IMHO, Gascon has a Vascoid substratum from a part of that continuum.
Unless the Galician-Portuguese (Leonese?) form "rua" is older and at the root of French "rue".
Absurd.
Ruta produces rua quite straightforwardly, and rua can perfectly produce rue.
Wrong. Firstly, this word **rūta doesn't exist in Latin, and secondly, it would have given **ruda in Spanish and Portuguese. Besides, French route comes from Latin (via) rupta 'open path (by cutting trees, etc.)'.
as it is well known
This is an authority argument I won't accept. However, the topic is interesting and probably you'll read more of it here.
BTW, just noticed that you began writing in Spanish (you used English earlier), any reason?
ReplyDeleteSí, amigo. Detesto tener que usar siempre la lengua de los yankis, y hay cosas que prefiero decir de manera más íntima (si es que se puede decir eso del castellano).
El origen del castellano y de otras lenguas como el euskera es un tema fascinante pero a la vez muy complicado por la falta de datos de las lenguas anteriores al latín, así que hay que andar con pies de plomo. Y si de verdad te interesa la lingüística histórica tienes aún que aprender un montón de cosas, amigo.
"You apparently forget Basque is only what remain of a larger dialectal continuum".
ReplyDeleteI call (and you should too) call that dialectal continuum Basque, the same that the dialectal continuum between Santander and Buenos Aires is known as Castilian (also Spanish) or the dialectal continuum between Bremen and Vienna is known as German. Making forced distinctions between dialects that we don't almost know about and which still exist in modern Basque where it has survived is trivial, it's trying to debate on what types of grass are green enough to be called "proper green", and doing it as blind people.
"**rūta doesn't exist in Latin"
Actually it does but does not mean what I thought it did but, as you well suggest later: "it would have given **ruda in Spanish"... And it does!
I call (and you should too) call that dialectal continuum Basque, the same that the dialectal continuum between Santander and Buenos Aires is known as Castilian (also Spanish) or the dialectal continuum between Bremen and Vienna is known as German. Making forced distinctions between dialects that we don't almost know about and which still exist in modern Basque where it has survived is trivial,
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid NOT. The case of Basque is very different from Spanish. The important part are precisely those "dialects we don't almost know about" but which partly survive in modern Basque. Instead, you propose to forget about them and call them "Basque" by the same political reasons that lead Spanish linguists to consider Asturian and Aragonese as dialects of Spanish.
But in paleo-linguists this "approach" is simply inacceptable.
"**rūta doesn't exist in Latin"
Actually it does but does not mean what I thought it did but
Yes, I'm aware of this, but obviously this word has nothing to do with streets.
as you well suggest later: "it would have given **ruda in Spanish"... And it does!
It's no wonder as this the regular evolution where intervocalic -t- becomes -d-, actually pronounced as an approximant [δ]. You should already know that, because it's a basic linguistic fact.
I wrote all what follows but really forget because it's not worth discussing all that: it's just a matter of terminology.
ReplyDeleteI will keep calling ancient Basque, "Basque" and not something else. Add ancient or Aquitanian to the term if you wish but do not remove the term Basque (Vasco-, euskal-) because that way you only distort facts.
What I first wrote and does not really matter so much:
Don't be ridiculous, I am not yet proposing to call Iberian "Basque". You are just making strange claims about the differences between Ancient Basque (Aquitanian mostly) and Modern Basque, however for all you use the "Vasco-Caucasian" tag you have not AFAIK addressed this matter in your blog (except very shallowly in this post maybe, where you discuss some alleged changes between "proto-Basque" and modern Basque).
You have nowhere explored why Aquitanian Basque dialects would be different from modern Basque or other ancient Basque attested this side of the imposed and arbitrary Bidasoa border.
Asturian and Aragonese cannot be dialects of Castilian (improperly called "Spanish") because they are languages evolved in parallel and contact (not derivates). If anything they are all dialects of Vulgar Latin (Iberian variant).
Here we have modern Basque which is a derivate from ancient Basque, both being dialect continuums. So if we admit that modern dialects are all the same language (there's people who may contest such idea for Bizkaiera and Xiberuera - there are those who say that if they would be larger they'd be considered distinct languages, just like Asturianu, Galician and Castilian). The matter of what constitutes a language and a dialect is not straigthforward, for example one could well say that, specially in the less regulated past, Romances were a dialect continuum rather that discretely distinct languages.
What you are doing is saying: wait Vulgar Latin is not yet Romance, hence we cannot call it Romance.
I will keep calling ancient Basque, "Basque" and not something else. Add ancient or Aquitanian to the term if you wish but do not remove the term Basque (Vasco-, euskal-) because that way you only distort facts.
ReplyDeleteNot really. I was referring to extinct varieties which only survive in the form of loanwords, mainly into Basque but also in Romance languages.
Also your assumption that Castilian Spanish has a "Basque" substratum, not only is naïve, but it's also contradicted by linguistic evidence. For example, the aspiration of Latin f- into h, commonly attributed to such a substrate, is actually a Celtic feature.