02 September 2013

Basque otso 'wolf' (updated)


Basque otso 'wolf' derives from Aquitanian osson, oxson1, where xs probably reflects an apico-alveolar affricate like the one found in modern Basque. There're also the Iberian onomastic element ośon and the "Tartessian" toponym Osson-oba 'River of wolves', whose second member is an Italoid toponymic element (e.g. On-oba) cognate to Lithuanian upė2.

My colleague Miguel Carrasquer links this word to Berber *wVʃʃVn 'jackal', in turn cognate to Egyptian wnʃ 'wolf' (Militarev). I regard this and other substrate loanwords as remnants of a Paleo-Berber language once spoken in the Iberian Peninsula. This would possibly be reflected in the distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup E-M81, native to NW Africa but found also in some areas of the Iberian Peninsula (especially on the west), with a strong peak among Pasiegos of Cantabria, an ethnical group of trashumant shepherds3.


Distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup E-M81
______________________
1 J. Gorrotxategi (1984): Estudio sobre la onomástica indígena de Aquitania, p. 250-251.
2 F. Villar (2000): Indoeuropeos y no indoeuropeos en la Hispania prerromana.
3 Attempts to explain this as a result of the Muslim conquest (8th century AD) can be dismissed.

104 comments:

  1. Hola, Octavia!

    Actually, Octavia, I am utterly right. I was very heavily into genetics and history before migrating over to language and linguistics. It is not wise to challenge me on history and genetics…I am much, much stronger than you on that turf.

    ”Outside of Africa, E-M81 has been observed in all the six Iberian populations surveyed, with frequencies in the range of 1.6%–4.0% in northern Portuguese, southern Spaniards, Asturians, and Basques; 12.2% in southern Portuguese; and 41.1% in the Pasiegos from Cantabria. It has been suggested (Bosch et al. 2001) that recent gene flow may have brought E3b chromosomes from northwestern Africa into Iberia, as a consequence of the Islamic occupation of the peninsula, and that such gene flow left only a minor contribution to the current Iberian Y-chromosome pool. The relatively young TMRCA of 5.6 ky (95% CI 4.6–6.3 ky) that we estimated for haplogroup E-M81 and the lack of differentiation between European and African haplotypes in the network of E-M81 (fig. 2C) support the hypothesis of recent gene flow between northwestern Africa and Iberia. In this context, our data refine the conclusions of Bosch et al. (2001) in two ways. First, not all of the E3b chromosomes in Iberia can be regarded as a signature of African gene flow into the peninsula: in our data set, 8 of 15 E-M78 chromosomes belong to cluster α, denoting gene flow from mainland Europe (see above). Second, and more importantly, the degree of the African contribution is highly variable across different Iberian populations: the proportion of haplogroup E chromosomes of African origin (E[xE3b], E-M35*, and E-M81) was <5% in three Spanish locations; 10.0% and 14.2% in northern and southern Portugal, respectively; and >40% in the Pasiegos (table 1). A relatively high frequency of E-M81 in a different sample of Pasiegos (18%) and non-Pasiegos Cantabrians (17%) has also recently been reported (Maca-Meyer et al. 2003). Such differences in the relative African contribution to the male gene pool of different Iberian populations may reflect, at least in part, the different durations of Islamic influence and introgression in different parts of the peninsula, as well as drift/founder effects for the small Pasiegos group.” ~ Cruciani et al. 2004 - Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ”… Basque otso 'wolf' (Aquitanian OXSON-) and the toponym Oson-uba is related to Berber *wVʃʃVn.”

      I am not so sure of this, Octavia. If the Proto-Basque goes back to (see below), then the /n/ must be an onomastic infix or some way to mark the name as male. Also the /n/ is inexplicably missing from the word-final position of the Proto-Basque and Modern Basque forms. Pre-Proto-Basque would retain the /n/ so would Proto-Basque and Modern Basque. In some instances /n/ > /r/ (denasalization) for reasons no one can explain. Also, /n/ is categorically lost intervocalically (between vowels) in Proto-Basque except where, sometimes, it is preserved as /ñ/ [ɲ], a voiced palatal nasal after /i/. The loss of the /n/ at the end of the Basque word assumes it was originally intervocalic. Word-finally /n/ is lost in -i verb stems except when preceded by /i/. No one that I have seen reconstructs the word with an /n/ or /r/, therefore, we can rule out Berber as the source of this word. Also, your etymology assumes an unknown Berber dialect in which the first vowel of the word is /o/. As far as is known, no such dialectal variation of this word exists with /o/ as the first vowel and none can be reconstructed for Berber. Also, the last vowel of the Berber word is not an /o/ and neither can that be reconstructed for Berber based on the evidences. In the attested words the last vowels are /e/, /i/, and /ǝ/ . As far as I know, /e/ > /o/ would only occur in the later stages of Basque, especially, in the eastern dialects same with /i/ < > /u/ in peninsular dialects.

      If Basque is related to Macro-/ Vasco-Caucasian, then the initial /b/ would be lost as Basque /b/ is lost before /o/ in word initial positions. Also word-medial /r/'s LOOK like they could be lost in Macro-/ Vasco-Caucasian words for some reason. They are lost within North Caucausian isoglosses.

      Proto-Basque: *oćo > Basque: otso “wolf” ~ PNC: *bħĕrc̣ĭ ‛wolf’ > Andi: boc̣o (NCED 294) (Bengston)

      Proto-West-Caucasian: *(bVgV)-bVʒ́V jackal, hyena
      Abkhaz: a-bgǝ́ʒ Abaza: bagaʒa
      Comments: PAT *bVgVʒ́V (cf. also Bzyb. a-bgǝ́ʒ́). The form is an old compound (with contraction) from *bVga 'fox, jackal'(q.v.) + *bVʒ́a, with the second part corresponding to PEC *bɦĕrc̣ĭ 'wolf'(Bengston)

      Proto-Basque: *oćo > Basque: otso “wolf” ~ Lak: b-arc’ “wolf “/ Avar: b-ac’ “wolf” (Manfred Owstrowski)

      There is actually a whole list of such supposed related North Caucasian words to Basque: otso.

      Please note that the symbol c in the transcription of North Caucasian represents /ts/ as in English rats.

      Also note that Basque: otso means ‘wild’ in some circumstances.

      Also note Finnish: otso, ohto “bear” (poetic). I am pretty sure the Finnish word is not Berber. I am familiar with the Berber word because of my research into Meroitic. There are similar words in Afroasiatic and "Astaboran" or Northern Eastern Sudanic.

      Delete
    2. Actually, Octavia, I am utterly right. I was very heavily into genetics and history before migrating over to language and linguistics. It is not wise to challenge me on history and genetics…I am much, much stronger than you on that turf.
      Ha, ha, ha. It looks like the authors of the paper you quote are weak on history, because the Pasiego homeland where one of the least islamized regions of the Peninsula. So your "evidence" amounts to nothing.

      I am not so sure of this, Octavia. If the Proto-Basque goes back to (see below), then the /n/ must be an onomastic infix or some way to mark the name as male.
      There's no such infix AFAIK.

      Also, your etymology assumes an unknown Berber dialect in which the first vowel of the word is /o/. As far as is known, no such dialectal variation of this word exists with /o/ as the first vowel and none can be reconstructed for Berber.
      This o would have originated by assimilation of the first vowel to w-, which then disappeared. Second o would be consequence of vowel harmony. But these changes didn't had to happen in Berber but in the target language.

      Also the /n/ is inexplicably missing from the word-final position of the Proto-Basque and Modern Basque forms.
      That's right, but I'm afraid Bengtson's "Proto-Basque" is idiosyncratic.

      No one that I have seen reconstructs the word with an /n/ or /r/
      You apparently forgot the word is actually attested in Aquitanian inscriptions, and possibly also in Iberian, not to mention the toponym Osson-uba.


      If Basque is related to Macro-/ Vasco-Caucasian, then the initial /b/ would be lost as Basque /b/ is lost before /o/ in word initial positions.
      This has little to do with Vasco-Caucasian but with Basque itself.

      Also word-medial /r/'s LOOK like they could be lost in Macro-/ Vasco-Caucasian words for some reason. They are lost within North Caucausian isoglosses.
      I'm affraid this is part of Bengtson's crackpot etymologies. For example, Basque sagu 'mouse' isn't Vasco-Caucasian at all but has Afrasian cognates. http://vasco-caucasian.blogspot.com.es/2013/03/basque-sagu-mouse.html

      Caucasian *tsa:rggwɨ: (˜ -ǝ:, -a:) 'weasel, marten'
      Altaic *tHàrba 'a k. of small animal'
      Occitan and Franco-Provençal darbon 'mole'
      Basque erbi 'hare'

      Notice that the original labiovelar cluster is reduced to a labial stop and also the initial plosive was lost in Paleo-Basque (Martinet's Law).

      Also note Finnish: otso, ohto “bear” (poetic). I am pretty sure the Finnish word is not Berber.
      Why do you suppose the Finnish word is related to Basque? Have you heard of chance resemblance?. The Finnish word must be an IE loanword, likely from Indo-Iranian.

      Delete
  2. If the population is older than the Muslim domination of Iberia...then why are Berber-specific mtDNA haplogroups largely missing from this population. This indicates that it was pretty much only Berber-derived men, at least paternally, who came to this area (likely seeking refuge or they were placed there during the Reconquista), why? Why no women and only men? This is weird for a Berber population that is suppose to have existed there. In the Canaries, the Berber mtDNA is quite frequent. Why not in the Pasiegos and Cantabria? There is unusually high Y-DNA R1a among the Pasiegos also. Much higher than much of western Europe and Iberia. This could be due to the Slavic soldiers/ slaves who were in service to the Muslims and moved there by way of the Reconquista. Also notice that the Pasiegos are said to be medieval immigrants to the area from somewhere not far but south of the mountains. We never know with migration stories but worth mentioning. Again, you don't know as much as you think.

    One has to be careful with percentages in samples, Octavia. The smaller the sample, the greater the chance of error in representation. This was proven true with the Pasiegos. The actual percentage of Y-DNA E-M81 is around ~18% NOT 40% and in Cantabria in general it is 8 - 10%. This is known from a much larger sample of the Pasiegos and Cantabrians.

    The mtDNA is dominated by Northern European and Basque types (V, I , U5). There are two types that could be associated with the Berbers mtDNA L2 = 2/ 82 (Sub-Saharan) and M1 = 1/ 82 (found in high frequency Northeast Africa including Egypt and the Near East, it is a Caucasoid type).

    Also in a study of MHC class II polymorphisms that closely relate Pasiegos to Danes, Poles and Germans rather than to non-Pasiego Cantabrians(Sánchez-Velasco et al. 1999, 2003).

    Autosomally, the Pasiegos cluster quite closely with the Basque people. In fact, there is a Basque substrate in the Asturian dialect they speak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the population is older than the Muslim domination of Iberia...then why are Berber-specific mtDNA haplogroups largely missing from this population. This indicates that it was pretty much only Berber-derived men, at least paternally, who came to this area (likely seeking refuge or they were placed there during the Reconquista), why?
      This again doesn't prove a Middle Age chronology. As I said before, trying to explain everything from what is already know is a methodological vice.

      There is unusually high Y-DNA R1a among the Pasiegos also. Much higher than much of western Europe and Iberia. This could be due to the Slavic soldiers/ slaves who were in service to the Muslims and moved there by way of the Reconquista.
      Sorry, but this is an ad hoc explanation based on second-class history books. Try again better.

      Also notice that the Pasiegos are said to be medieval immigrants to the area from somewhere not far but south of the mountains.
      Actually, Pasiegos were transhumant shepherds, like other ethnical groups of the Cantabrian mountains such as "Vaqueros de alzada" in Asturias.

      Again, you don't know as much as you think.
      Ad hominem arguments aren't welcome here.

      In fact, there is a Basque substrate in the Asturian dialect they speak.
      I don't think so, but I'm here to study these things, don't you think?

      Delete
  3. Continued from the "Urraca" post.

    "Sorry, but I don't like this game..."

    Then "games" should not be started.

    "This again doesn't prove a Middle Age chronology."

    It certainly strongly militates against your idea. It greatly supports mine. An entire ancient Berber population with no Berber female input, really? The Canarians have 14% U6 mtDNA inherited from the Ancient Berber population more than the Y-DNA at 8.3% E-M81. The pre-Hispanic Canarians (Guanches) carried Y-DNA J1 at a frequency of ~17%...the modern population at a frequency of ~4%. (see below for further refutation)

    "As I said before, trying to explain everything from what is already know is a methodological vice."

    And you were clearly rebuffed. Not using what we know is absurd. Science has solved many "gaps" using that method and an excellent example was provided. Its great effectiveness cannot be refuted.

    "Sorry, but this is an ad hoc explanation based on second-class history books. Try again better."

    Prove it wrong...simple as that. Also the operative word I used is, "could". Until I see legitimate evidence that refutes my opinion, my opinion stands as is it is.

    "Ha, ha, ha. It looks like the authors of the paper you quote are weak on history, because the Pasiego homeland where one of the least islamized regions of the Peninsula. So your "evidence" amounts to nothing."

    "The relatively young TMRCA of 5.6 ky (95% CI 4.6–6.3 ky) that we estimated for haplogroup E-M81 and the lack of differentiation between European and African haplotypes in the network of E-M81 (fig. 2C) support the hypothesis of recent gene flow between northwestern Africa and Iberia."

    It seems you are quite weak on genetics. The genetic evidence is rather clear. This is one of those many cases where genetics backs up the known historical record quite impressively (see how science does that, it took the known and it helped solve the unknown). So who do I believe, you or the genes (science)? I choose the genes (science). Your disdain for authority has caused you to be in error. The paternal Berber signatures cannot be ancient because THEY LACK DIFFERENTIATION from the North African population. What does that mean, founder effect and genetic drift due to only a few males in the founding population. Thus, "recent" gene flow is the only explanation. Not to mention the complete lack of Berber female lineages in contrast to the ancient Berbers who once inhabited the Canaries whose genes are still found quite frequently there. Autosomally, the North African influence is 17% in the Canarians, by mtDNA 14%, by Y-DNA as much as 37% "Eastern" (Eastern Mediterranean) lineages (also includes Sub-Saharan lineages present in the Berber populations). This is more or less with the Y-DNA lineages being known in Iberia, so some of this could be from Iberia itself. In the ancient Berber population of the Canaries Y-DNA Haplogroup J1 was relatively frequent, it absent from from the Pasiegos. This again speaks to the small number of founders. Of course though, J1 could have been bred out of the population if it was a part of the small founder population, but it is doubtful that it was present in the founding population to begin with. The population of the Pasiegos itself is rather small. Again, autosomally, the Pasiegos cluster with the Basques, not the Berbers. This points to, again, recent gene flow...as not enough time passed for the founders to make much autosomal impact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid those data can't give us an absolute chronology like radiocarbon, so it doesn't support your proposed association with the Muslim conquest. But linguistic data (pre-Latin loanwords) point to prehistoric contacts with Berber-speaking populations of North Africa.

      Delete
  4. Part 2:

    From your responses to previous posts that I did not respond to.

    "Why do you suppose the Finnish word is related to Basque? Have you heard of chance resemblance?. The Finnish word must be an IE loanword, likely from Indo-Iranian."

    I only said to note it...did not mention that it was related to Basque. As for my knowledge of chance resemblance, I will regard that as a "joke" from you.

    "My criticism is directed towards your written ideas, not to your being (or "Dasein" if you prefer)"

    I like this word, "Dasein".

    "This has little to do with Vasco-Caucasian."

    Opinion ≠ fact.

    "I don't think so, but I'm here to study these things, am I not?"

    There are Basque loanwords in the Asturian dialect they speak.

    "Actually, Pasiegos were transhumant shepherds, like other ethnical groups of the Cantabrian mountains such as "Vaqueros de alzada" in Asturias."

    I think my whole statement was, "Also notice that the Pasiegos are said to be medieval immigrants to the area from somewhere not far but south of the mountains. WE NEVER KNOW WITH MIGRATION STORIES, but worth mentioning."

    Sentences are so important. :)




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These Basque loanwords are quite modern and due to interchanges during transhumance. Also a trade jargon with words of Basque origin has been reported in Asturias.

      BTW, Basque dundu (R) 'blue', (Z) 'cloudy (said of weather)' is a word of unmistakable Berber origin and yet it has nothing to do with Pasiegos (although they could have borrowed as tonto).

      Delete
    2. Also Spanish perro, Asturian perru 'dog' is clearly linked to Berber *bajrru 'fox', an isolated word with no Afrasian cognates.

      In my opinion, these people were probably associated with the Megalithic culture which started in the Iberian Peninsula in the Neolithic.

      Delete
  5. "I'm afraid those data can't give us an absolute chronology like radiocarbon, so it doesn't support your proposed association with the Muslim conquest. But linguistic data (pre-Latin loanwords) point to prehistoric contacts with Berber-speaking populations of North Africa."

    "In my opinion, these people were probably associated with the Megalithic culture which started in the Iberian Peninsula in the Neolithic."

    No, genes cannot give us exact dates, but what they can do is eliminate dates and conform others. The genes do not confirm an older source for the Y-haplogroup (E-M81). The TMRCA (Time to Most Common Recent Ancestor) is 5600ybp present for E-M81. This makes E-M81 unable to participate in the "Megalithic culture which started in the Neolithic in Iberia" you speak of. The genes spread from east to west. There are ancestral signatures to E-M81, Y-haplogroups *E-Z827(Z827) > *E-V257/L19 (L19, V257) (> E-M81). *E-Z827 is not detected anywhere. *E-V257/L19 is found in one southern Spaniard and one Cantabrian. E-M81 is the highly dominant subclade of *E-V257/L19. As one goes from east across North Africa the Atlantic in the west the STR haplotype variation (implying decreasing lineage age in those areas) decreases while the frequency of E-M81 greatly increases. The means that E-M81 is younger in the west of North Africa and older in the east towards and in Egypt. Again, this makes it impossible for this lineage to participate in the Neolithic in Iberia. The only explanation of the Pasiegos is recent gene flow. Since we are aware that it was only men who went there (as virtually no female Berber mtDNA is found there), this indicates that these men were either placed there or were seeking refuge or hiding from something. Many Berbers also were forcibly converted or chose to convert. Same with the "Sephardic" Jews (my people). As I said before, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians can not be left out. The Phoenicians had contact with Iberia and North Africa as early as 3000 years ago, but that would have only brought non-Arabic Semitic to Iberia. The Carthaginians would come much later after 2650 years ago (650BCE). Carthage, in fact, controlled the southern and eastern part of Iberia (the territory of the ancient Iberian speakers) according to many maps and a great ways inland at that. We know Berbers were a large part of Carthage's ethnos. Their Phoenician dialect, Punic, had many Berber loan words also. We also know that many Berber words by way of Arabic entered into the Spanish lexicon during the Islamic rule of Iberia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many Berbers also were forcibly converted or chose to convert.
      I'd say to slavery. Among other things, Phoenicians went to Iberia to exploit mineral ores and so they possibly brought slaves from North Africa. In fact, the word 'silver' in Celtiberian and Basque and which spread also to Germanic and Balto-Slavic is of Semitic origin. But once again, this won't explain the observed gene flow.

      We also know that many Berber words by way of Arabic entered into the Spanish lexicon during the Islamic rule of Iberia.
      According to the list given in F. Corriente (2003): Diccionario de arabismos y voces afines en iberorromance, they're a few dozen.

      But there're other lexical correspondences which indicate prehistoric contacts (in both directions) between Iberia and North Africa. I've already mentioned otso, dundu/tonto and perro, but there're more.

      Delete
  6. "I'd say to slavery. Among other things, Phoenicians went to Iberia to exploit mineral ores and so they possibly brought slaves from North Africa. In fact, the word 'silver' in Celtiberian and Basque and which spread also to Germanic and Balto-Slavic is of Semitic origin. But once again, this won't explain the observed gene flow."

    The Phoenicians did not use Berber slaves. Why would they do that when the local Iberian populations were already mining the metals and smelting and refining them. The Phoenicians merely traded things with the local population for the metals. The Phoenicians understood economics in ways modern countries do not. Slavery was inefficient, so the Phoenicians would not bother with it. They merely traded or transported them for money. The Phoenicians were skilled middlemen. I am sure the Iberians had no use for Berber slaves, same with the "Tartessians" who I believe were related to the Iberians based on the phonotactics of their language.

    Yes, I knew about the word silver.

    "According to the list given in F. Corriente (2003): Diccionario de arabismos y voces afines en iberorromance, they're a few dozen."

    Doesn't it make sense that there would be? hahaha

    I like how you change your posts, hahaha. You post one thing and then change it later.

    "But there're other lexical correspondences which indicate prehistoric contacts (in both directions) between Iberia and North Africa. I've already mentioned otso, dundu/tonto and perro, but there're more."

    I did say I more than accepted words by way of Carthage and even during the time of Roman dominance. But, for the Pasiegos, no question that it is more or less medieval gene flow.

    "BTW, Basque dundu (R) 'blue', (Z) 'cloudy (said of weather)' is a word of unmistakable Berber origin and yet it has nothing to do with Pasiegos (although they could have borrowed as tonto)."

    Will answer under that post.


    "Also Spanish perro, Asturian perru 'dog' is clearly linked to Berber *bajrru 'fox', an isolated word with no Afrasian cognates."

    If it is not a loanword, Berber: Shilh (Tashelhit): a-bayrru does have Afroasiatic cognates.

    Proto-Afro-Asiatic: *ba(ʔ)rVw/y
    Meaning: wolf, hyena, jackal

    Semitic: *barbar- 'wolf'
    Berber: (?) *bayrru 'fox'
    Western Chadic: *barVw/y- 'hyena' 1, (?) 'wild animal' 2
    Central Chadic: *mburum- 'hyena'
    East Chadic: *ba(Ha)r- 'hyena' 1, 'jackal' 2
    Dahalo (Sanye): (?) ḅṓr-a 'any dangerous animal'
    Mogogodo (Yaaku): *bary- 'jackal'

    Notes: Cf. HSED 221 *bar- 'beast of prey': Akk.; Eg. bꜣ 'panther'; WCh.: Hs 'hyaena'; EDE II 148: Akk. ("perhaps"); Brb.; Cush.: Yaaku and Dah (both with a question mark); WCh.: Hs; C.Ch. (incl. forms like Gabin purìya and Bura mobulu which are hardly related); E.Ch.

    Also, did you search for me on Academia.edu?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Phoenicians did not use Berber slaves. Why would they do that when the local Iberian populations were already mining the metals and smelting and refining them. The Phoenicians merely traded things with the local population for the metals.
      Then how would you explain the word 'silver' derives from a Semitic root *ts?rp- 'to refine metal'? Also Basque nagusi 'principal' is of Semitic origin (cfr. Ge`ez nǝguŝ).

      But, for the Pasiegos, no question that it is more or less medieval gene flow.
      Then why would you explain the origin of perro, perru?

      If it is not a loanword, Berber: Shilh (Tashelhit): a-bayrru does have Afroasiatic cognates.
      It IS a loanword without Afrasian cognates.

      Also, did you search for me on Academia.edu?
      Yes, I visited your profile. :-)

      Delete
    2. I also think you're too optimistic about the Iberian-Tartessian connection. While Tartessian is likely IE (although not Celtic), Iberian certainly is not.

      Delete
  7. "Then how would you explain the word 'silver' derives from a Semitic root *ts?rp- 'to refine metal'? Also Basque nagusi 'principal' is of Semitic origin (cfr. Ge`ez nǝguŝ)."

    Firstly, Ge'ez: nǝguŝ, has nothing to do with the Basque word. The word is not found in any known Phoenician inscriptions, it is known from Hebrew (Hebrew: ngŝ 'to collect (offerings); force to work (people)'; pt. 'slave-driver; tyrant', pl. 'ruling body) which is a cognate word to Ge'ez.

    According to Trask,

    nagusi(B G HN L LN Z) (16th cent.), nabusi(LN) (1571), nausi(L **) n. ‘master of the house’, ‘boss’, ‘proprietor, owner’, ‘master’, ‘teacher’, a. ‘chief, principal’, TS (B) a. ‘eldest’ (of siblings).
    OUO. Second variant by P10. If the adjectival sense is original, may contain -i[**{1}] AFS.


    By this we could suppose Basque: mutil "boy" (uninflected) could be related to Proto-Afroasiatic: *mutVl-
    Meaning: chief, warrior
    Semitic: *mutVl- 'princely'
    Egyptian: mtr.w (19) 'soldiers'

    Words for man and boy, stranger and king, people, person, and father, even women and men, overlap, sometimes, in Afroasiatic.

    So, I think you are too optimistic about hunting up Afroasiatic, especially, Berber connections to Basque. That theory died long ago, let dead things alone.

    As for silver, it appears it COULD be ultimately a Semitic wanderwort.

    "Then why would you explain the origin of perro, perru?"

    This word has absolutely nothing to do with gene flow into the Pasiegos population.

    "It IS a loanword without Afrasian cognates.""
    It is not Wolof, Malinke, Mandinka, Songhay, or Dogon as far as I could find.

    "Yes, I visited your profile. :-)"
    Find what you were looking for? hahahaha

    "I also think you're too optimistic about the Iberian-Tartessian connection. While Tartessian is likely IE (although not Celtic), Iberian certainly is not."

    While there was certainly goodly contact with IE, too much of what we CAN decipher is not IE at all. Even the experts are now leaning strongly away from IE for "Tartessian". Again I refer you to the "Tartessian" Talk page on Wikipedia. Look under the Academic Consensus section.

    Also, for Berber *wVʃʃVn "jackal". Strange thing...after more research I saw the Aquitanian words again, oxson, osson. These words seem too old for Berber to be in Iberia at least . If Lakarra is correct and Proto-Basque , at the latest, existed ~600CE...something seems wrong. Aquitanian is too far north to have had contact with Berber at any point. We know Aquitanian was spoken, at least, 2000 years ago and it is safely extrapolated to a time much before then. The age of this word likely goes back to a time before E-M81 or Berbers could have been in Iberia.

    See next post for more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Firstly, Ge'ez: nǝguŝ, has nothing to do with the Basque word. The word is not found in any known Phoenician inscriptions, it is known from Hebrew (Hebrew: ngŝ 'to collect (offerings); force to work (people)'; pt. 'slave-driver; tyrant', pl. 'ruling body) which is a cognate word to Ge'ez.
      Not being recored in Phoenician doesn't rule a Semitic orign.

      By this we could suppose Basque: mutil "boy" (uninflected) could be related to Proto-Afroasiatic: *mutVl-
      That's ridiculous.

      Aquitanian is too far north to have had contact with Berber at any point.
      I must insist that a language related to Berber must have been spoken in Iberia.

      The age of this word likely goes back to a time before E-M81 or Berbers could have been in Iberia.
      I don't accept such a recent chronology.

      Delete
  8. (Continued from the last post)

    Correction: These words seem too old for Berber to be in Iberia.

    According to Ambrosio et al. 2010

    "The wide but non-homogeneous spatial distribution pattern of E-M81 chromosomes in Iberia does not seem to be concordant with the regions in which Islamic occupation was most intense and prolonged (Lopez-Davalillo 2000; Martinez-Ruiz et al. 2003). This would strengthen the hypothesis that migratory movements took place between Maghreb and Iberia prior to the Islamic occupation, and those other important movements within the peninsula occurred later (Calderón 2006). The Islamic occupation of western Andalusia lasted from 711 to 1262 and 5 years later Portugal and Castile (Spain) agreed on the southern border dividing their kingdoms. The Berbers, who arrived in several waves, were the most numerous of all the migrant populations that arrived in Iberia during Islamic rule. It has been estimated that around one-third of the 300 000 Berbers that arrived during these years did so in the eighth century (Mackay 1977), a time when the total population of the peninsula has been estimated at between 6 and 7 million (Dupaquier 1997). The Berbers tended to settle in the mountainous areas of the peninsula and, interestingly, most of them were men of reproductive age, many of whom came with their wives, also Berbers in many cases. Some of the descendants of these early occupiers were to return to Maghreb between 1264 and 1609. There are several relevant historical contexts preceding the Islamic occupation that are likely to have had a considerable impact on population dynamics in the Mediterranean area and in the Iberian Peninsula in particular. These were (i) the existence of a Berber gene flow associated with the Carthaginian period, which included aportion of north African natives; (ii) the establishment of the Roman Empire on both sides of the Strait of Gibraltar, which considerably improved communication and safety throughout the Empire; and (iii) the considerable and lasting difference in population sizes between Europe and North Africa (always higher in Europe), which would explain the low North African contribution to the gene pool in Europe, although the Berbers did leave a genetic imprint in numerous locations in Europe due to the remarkably high frequency of E-M81 in this population."

    I also noticed where Aquitanian has a word-final /n/ Basque, often times, does not. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hola, Octavia!

    "Not being recored in Phoenician doesn't rule a Semitic orign."

    Then it must be Hebrew or Arabic. I doubt that it was Arabic on these grounds: Arabic: niǯāš- 'ruler'; nǯš "ê. le compère de qn. dans (une vente)". In Basque, the ezh-caron, /ǯ/ ⟨d͡ʒ⟩ - a voiced palato-alveolar affricate, would have been realized as [j, ʝ, ɟ, ʒ, ʃ, x] depending on the dialect. In Spanish, depending on the dialect, the ezh-caron, /ǯ/ ⟨d͡ʒ⟩ - a voiced palato-alveolar affricate (which does not exist in Spanish), would have been realized as, [ɟʝ] in Castilian Spanish, or be a stigmatized dialectal realization of /ʝ/ and /ʎ/, but mostly /ʝ/ or /ʎ/ if I understood correctly. I think in Basque both /ʝ/ and /ʎ/ exist. The outcome would be similar if the Basque word was transmitted through Spanish. Something like niʝ/ʎas? So we are left with Hebrew which, anciently, was dialectically extremely close to Phoenician in the Canaanitic continuum.

    "That's ridiculous."

    Of course it is, I adduced that to provide an example of what you did with the word attested in Ge'ez. As the only plausible/ applicable attested form belongs to Hebrew.

    "I must insist that a language related to Berber must have been spoken in Iberia."

    It is not possible at that time depth. The Berber language like the typical Berber genetic signatures spread from east (the Near East, Northeast Africa) to west (the Atlantic Ocean). If I am not mistaken...the most conservative Berber language is Tuareg. It is well known they migrated from the east. There are known old Berber loanwords in Egyptian and Nubian.

    This should interest you: "Phylogenetic analysis based on mitochondrial sequences from Mediterranean populations was performed using Neighbor-Joining algorithm implemented in MEGA program. mtDNA sequences from Afalou and Taforalt were classified in Eurasiatic and North African haplogroups. We noted the absence of Sub-Saharan haplotypes. Phylogenetic tree clustered Taforalt with European populations." Mind you that they are talking about the Epipaleolithic period (23.000 years to 10.000 years BP). This would be well before Berber split from Afroasiatic.

    "I don't accept such a recent chronology."

    The facts do not support very ancient contact between Basques or their relatives and Berber. The Aquitanian word is very likely too old to be Berber. Grudgingly, many linguists do find Bengston's etymology highly interesting and consider it one of the strong and least suspect of any of his Macro-/ Vasco-Caucasian etymologies. I have to say, myself, that it is a strong one based on what is known about Berber and Basque. The loss of word-medial "r" is evident even within NE Caucasian itself. I think PNC: *bħĕrc̣ĭ ‛wolf’ > Vasconic: **bhoćo > **bØoćo > *boćo > *oćo > otso? or something close? Do not criticize, it was only a demonstrative exercise adduced as a possibility.

    The short first vowel the short e /ĕ/ becomes /o/ through some phonological process unknown to me, the short i /ĭ/ would become /o/ through vowel harmonization, the fricative after the /b/ is lost through Martinets' Law, in later stages of Basque the initial /b/ is lost, the /c/ phoneme is has the /ts/ sound (the /ts/ in English: rats) in N. Caucasian which would become /ć/ ⟨t͡ɕ⟩ - voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate in Old(?) Proto-Basque and later > /ts/(???)...ss or xs in Aquitanian represent apical sibilants? There are some real differences between Aquitanian and Basque. They seem extremely similar in most ways, but very different in the other few. Did I do that correctly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Basque nagusi is a Semitic loanword, the only plausible source can be Phoenician, whose form would be similar to the the Hebrew one, And the fact the word isn't recorded in the known texts doesn't imply it didn't exist in that language.

      Like other language families, Berber had also a prehistory you can't ignore. And certaintly Berber already existed when Phoenicians, and later Romans, came to NW Africa. I'd recommend you read this doctoral thesis (in Catalan): La llengua amaziga a l'antiguitat a partir de les fonts gregues i llatines.

      The term "Aquitanian" actually refers to an epigraphic corpus, not properly a language. But in that corpus there's an isogloss t- ~ h- which is a particular case of Martinet's Law and splits that linguistic domain in two different dialects, one more conservative and closer to Iberian (it not Iberian itself) and another one closer to Basque, that is, Paleo-Basque).

      I've already told you Bengtson's etymology is *wrong* by showing how his purported link between Caucasian *tsa:rggwɨ: (˜ -ǝ:, -a:) 'weasel, marten' and Basque sagu 'mouse' is flawed, but you apparently ignored that. Sorry, but this is simply too bad.

      Delete
    2. I've written about the Caucasian word here.

      Delete
    3. Please notice Bengtson's "Proto-Basque" is implicitly part of (North) Caucasian, which is utterly absurd. On the other hand, there's no such alveolo-palatal affricate in Basque, but rather an apico-alveolar //, sometimes describe as *retroflex*.

      Apparently, the shift osson > otśon took place in Aquitanian and Iberian.

      Delete
    4. Hola, Octavia!

      I am beginning to think that this word could be an internal innovation. Not because of Lakara, but because it is entirely possible. Remember when I gave the example of the supposed substrate in Sumerian? How that many of the words were not substratal, but internal innovations, in fact, Sumerian compound innovations. I am leaning towards that with this word.

      Basque seems to be like Dravidian in calling an animal by some salient trait or thing it does. Investigating that right now.

      Delete
    5. oops, forgot to mention...Yes, that IS absurd. I thought Bengtson thought of them as siblings within Macro-Caucasian, not that Proto-Basque was North Caucasian. Like Basque, North(east) Caucasian, and Burushaski (the extant languages minus Northwest Caucasian, though, Bengtson includes NW Caucasian).

      Delete
    6. I am beginning to think that this word could be an internal innovation. Not because of Lakarra, but because it is entirely possible.
      You'd better forget about it. BTW, I've just written about Spanish perro in my other blog.

      I thought Bengtson thought of them as siblings within Macro-Caucasian, not that Proto-Basque was North Caucasian.
      One thing is what he says and another is how he derives his idiosyncratic "Proto-Basque" reconstructions.

      Delete
    7. I am afraid I cannot forget about it. It really seems as though this could be an internal innovation...the phonetics and semantics match up just as well as the Berber theory.

      I learned that '-on' is the PROX GEN (Genitive) suffix as Trask labels it. It is a variant of the '-en' GEN (Genitive), SUPERL (Superlative) suffix.

      What PROX = is unknown to me and it is not listed in the Dictionary by Trask.

      I have also learned of another Aquitanian variant -uxsor.

      Also Miguel Carrasquer Vidal says, that in Pre-Basque (2000 years ago - around the same time as Aquitanian) word final *š > -ts which would mean the word I have in mind would work very well with the '-on' genitive suffix. Also, there is the loss of word-final lenis /n/ leaving the suffixal ending in '-o'.

      I will answer the 'perro' post shortly.

      Also, should I delete the Afroasiatic suggestion to the "Paleo-Balkanic *mendjo- 'foal' (updated)" post?

      Delete
    8. I am afraid I cannot forget about it. It really seems as though this could be an internal innovation...the phonetics and semantics match up just as well as the Berber theory.
      Nope.

      Delete
    9. Okay, tell me why not? You are funny by the way.

      Delete
    10. Lakarra's etymology is a pure invention and ignores the Aquitanian/Iberian evidence.

      Delete
    11. Hola, Octavia!

      I am not basing my word off of Lakarra's word. His idea is not off though. The word he chose is...but not the idea. I also pointed out in a previous post that I was not basing this on Lakarra's attempt. I recognized the problem with his word as I was reading through the papers on Basque/ Aquitanian and their purported, and most likely relative, Iberian ("Tartessian" likely belongs to this group as well).

      The /xs/, /ss/ of Aquitanian, /ś/ Iberian, and /ss/ "Tartessian" as you state in the post, likely represents a single phoneme similar to if not exactly Basque /ts/. If this is true, then my word works exactly as well as the Berber theory. My word is based off of a word in Basque that describes a salient feature of wolves...something they do. Not Lakarra's "tooth" attempt which appeared plausible, but as you said does not work out because of phonotactical considerations concerning Aquitanian/ Iberian/ "Tartessian". With the genitive '-on' suffix, it becomes a source of this action. With the loss of word-final lenis 'n' in Basque leaves '-o' word-finally. Again, word-final Pre-Basque /-ts/ < Proto-Vasconic */š/ according to Miguel Carrasquer Vidal. The phonotactics actually work out excellently with my word. I know you want this word to be Berber very badly, but I think it is just as plausible as an internal innovation and, in fact, may be one. You will likely poo-poo that as I said because you are dead-set on Berber, perhaps, detrimentally.

      Delete
    12. I am not basing my word off of Lakarra's word. His idea is not off though. The word he chose is...but not the idea.
      Actually, it's words, in plural. But the problem lies in the idea itself.

      "Tartessian" likely belongs to this group as well
      I don't think so.

      If this is true, then my word works exactly as well as the Berber theory. My word is based off of a word in Basque that describes a salient feature of wolves...something they do.
      And your word is ...?

      Again, word-final Pre-Basque /-ts/ < Proto-Vasconic */š/ according to Miguel Carrasquer Vidal.
      Not /š/ but an apico-alveolar sibilant /ś/. Actually, // is the fortis counterpart of /ś/, in this case originating from gemination.

      The phonotactics actually work out excellently with my word.
      Nope.

      I know you want this word to be Berber very badly,
      Not exactly.

      but I think it is just as plausible as an internal innovation
      I strongly disagree.

      You will likely poo-poo that as I said because you are dead-set on Berber, perhaps, detrimentally.
      Not really. I'm not fond of crackpot theories.

      Delete
    13. These "innovations" (actually euphemisms or Noah words) only occur in case the original was replaced by tabooistic reasons. And in the case of 'wolf', we have no evidence it actually happened. For example, all the Romance languages derive their word from Latin.

      Delete
    14. According to Miguel Carrasquer Vidal, Proto-Vasconic: *š = Pre-Basque: Initial: s-/ Verb Initial: s-/ Medial: -s-/ Final: -ts/ Clusters: -ts-.

      Notice he uses */š/ (or /ʃ/ which is the sh-sound as in English ‘ship’) and not */ś/. None of the authors I have read uses that notation for the transcription of this phoneme or for the word 'otso' not even you. I am sure all authors including you in this post had access to this font and form of notation yet you and they still chose not to use it…interesting. Even if the transcription should be as you declare…it does not change the outcome of the word I am focused upon. The word ends in the very phoneme either way it is transcribed -/tś/ or -/ts/ whether it is via cluster as in *-/šš/-, *-/śś/- > -/ts/-, -/tś/- or via word-final position *-/š/,* -/ś/ > -/ts/, -/tś/. So it does appear that the phonotactics work out excellently despite your protests. :)

      Secondly, I said ‘word’ because Lakarra used ONE WORD, the Basque word for ‘tooth’, hence, the singular usage, Octavia. One word = singular usage of ‘word’ not the plural usage ‘words’ which would be grammatically improper in ‘proper’ English... Hint: I am a native Anglophone. :)

      “Tartessian” is not Indo-European. That is pretty much settled from the evidences at hand. There are IE borrowings like in Basque and Iberian, but what is left over is not IE at all also like Basque and Iberian. If there is further evidence to be found, it is not forthcoming at present. There has been enough of the language found to know SOMEWHAT securely that “Tartessian” is very unlikely to be an IE language. Too much of the evidence at hand is against that theory. The known phonotactics and writing system does, interestingly, betray a language similar to Iberian and Basque and not anything IE.

      As far as *crackpot* is concerned, hahaha, like I said, you are amusing. :) What is hunting up phantom prehistoric Imazighen populations in ancient Iberia?

      Also it is interesting that you say that about "innovations"…Sumerian did not have any tabooistic concerns in its innovations. The Sumerians simply innovated compounds of already existent words in their lexicon that seemed, according to Sumerian phonology, were not possible, but in fact, were possible. These words seemed foreign and many thought they were until further investigation demonstrated otherwise. They needed new words for new things so they invented them by compounding. This also happened in Egyptian. The Egyptians coined their own words for many new things. This, in fact, happened in many languages. English is another preeminent example. In American English, we coin new words for things easily and often...'selfie' is the most recent one. You have a 'selfie' as your avatar on this blog. There is a tidal wave of evidence from many languages that needed words for new things and instead of borrowing the word from another language they coined their own word from their language and this refutes what you declare.

      I suggest you read this article on lexical innovation so that you are no longer miseducated: http://cis01.central.ucv.ro/litere/onomastica_lexicologie/revista_scol_2008/maria-laura_rus.pdf

      Delete
    15. Notice he uses */š/ (or /ʃ/ which is the sh-sound as in English ‘ship’) and not */ś/. None of the authors I have read uses that notation for the transcription of this phoneme or for the word 'otso' not even you. I am sure all authors including you in this post had access to this font and form of notation yet you and they still chose not to use it…interesting.
      Actually, these are different phonemes, so they can't be confused. AFAIK, no palatal (or palato-alveolar) phonemes are reconstructable for earlier stages of Basque. This doesn't imply they couldn't have existed, but the available evidence doesn't support them.

      Even if the transcription should be as you declare…it does not change the outcome of the word I am focused upon.
      I don't see how your unrevealed word would more plausible than the Berber one.

      I also strongly disagree about the classification of Tartessian, because it doesn't look at all like a near relative of Basque or Iberian. In my opinion, it's more likely a member of an extinct IE branch, possibly (although not sure) the same Italoid/Sorothaptic from which Lusitanian descends.

      Delete
    16. Hola, Octavia!

      Perhaps he used */š/ to represent that sound (/ś/), one would have to ask him if that is what he meant. I can only speculate. I have heard pronunciation of this phoneme (/ś/). To my Anglophone ears, it sounds like a mix of a hiss and the /š/, /ʃ/ sound, but more towards the hiss sound. The sound of the phoneme, /ś/...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA9uqMK2qO8.

      I did not say more plausible, I said equally as plausible as Berber. I have not revealed the word because I want to make sure before posting it that it really does have the validity that I claim for it.

      And about "Tartessian", I am sorry, Octavia, but that does not fly with the current knowledge we have. If the segmentation is correct, the left over portion, the majority of the script, makes no sense in an Indo-European context.

      Working on the "Perro" post.

      Delete
    17. Spanish and Basque /ś/ is an apico-alveolar sibilant, a kind of retroflex fricative (although not a true one, according to Wikipedia). By contrast, /ʃ/ is a palato-alveolar fricative. However, in modern Spanish the ancient /ʃ/ was backed to a velar, apparently because of its closeness to /ś/. In fact, the Basque affricate // is replaced in Spanish by //. For example, the surname Otsoa 'the Wolf' (with the determinated article appended to the noun) is rendered into Spanish Ochoa.

      All things being equal, direct transmission (either by borrowing or inheritance) for 'wolf' is more likely than an "innovation" (presumably for tabooistic reasons).

      As regarding Tartessian, in my opinion a large part of the problem is due to the semi-alphabetic script, which don't forget hasn't been yet completely deciphered, as the value of some signs is still uncertain or unknown. Sure, Tartessian isn't be Celtic, but it doesn't mean it isn't IE.

      Delete
    18. Thinking it over, Carrasquer's proposed etymology is coherent with his own view of Basque/Vasconic being an offshoot of Afrasian. On the other hand, it's quite possible for ś to reflect a former ʃ in some Paleo-X language. For example, Basque musu 'lip; face; kiss' and Celtic *bussu- 'lip' can be readily linked to Caucasian *malʃʃw 'slope; muzzle, face'.

      Delete
    19. Hola, Octavia!

      Sorry, I have not been ignoring you. Just been busy with my Meroitic stuff and life things, hahaha. As you saw on Wikipedia, I have been busy there, as well, helping with articles.

      I will answer your "perro" post also. I have most my answer saved on word.

      I certainly do not buy into Basque being Afroasiatic at all. Elamite I might be more willing to accept.

      Again, as far as I am aware, the two sounds do sound similar even Wikipedia agrees with that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_apicoalveolar_fricative#Voiceless_alveolar_retracted_sibilant

      Okay, rather than innovation (which does not require tabooistic means to occur), it could very well be inheritance, but when a language takes already existent words and compounds them to make new words for new things...that is called, "innovation". A language can also re-purpose a word or take a word and assign it a new meaning which is called, "semantic extension".

      I have also seen Mr. Carrasquer's new Nostratic paper on Academia.edu.

      As for "Tartessian", the area in which it was spoken was a language contact zone between Iberian and Lusitanian or some similar language. Most of "Tartessian" is not interprettable by Indo-European at all. Many of Koch's interpretations leave extensive waste that is not analyzable according to any language.

      Delete
    20. Hi, Adyghe.

      I agree Basque isn't Afrasian, but it seems to have loanwords from that source.

      And although /ś/ and /ʃ/ are different and coexist in some languages, e.g. Catalan and several Hispano-Romance languages, in others they're prone to be confused, and so in modern Spanish the latter was backed to /x/ and likewise in standard Portuguese the former was fronted to /s/.

      About Tartessian, I refer you to my updated post.

      Delete
    21. Hola, Octavia!

      The word I was thinking of is Basque: (h)ots "noise, cry, sound" by extension could mean "howl" + the prox. genitive -on (L. Trask) = otson (by Basque sound laws - deletion of word final "n") > otso "an agent, source, or origin of noise, cry, sound > (a) howl" which would nicely describe the baying/ ululation(s) of a wolf. Basque seems to be like English in several ways. Basque has several words for one thing and also compounding to make new words.

      Delete
    22. Unfortunately, unlike Paleo-Basque (Aquitanian) otśon, this "prox. genitive" has a fortis nasal, so your etymology is untenable. Sure, Basque has a lot of compounds, but they aren't bisyllablic as Lakarra thinks but longer words.

      For example, (h)ots can be linked to an old verb *enau(t)śi 'to speak, to bark (a dog)', which still survives in some varieties, sometimes as a fossilized participle. Furthermore, from this verb was formed (with reduction of the diphthong) a compound *enuś-kaɾa, *enuś-keɾa > euskara, euskera, litteraly 'way of speaking', hence '(Basque) language'.

      Delete
    23. Actually, Octavia, I researched this rather well. According to Larry Trask, word-final n's ARE fortis AND, "Very occasionally, a final n is lost. Such words as orain 'now', egun 'today', and ondoren 'consequence' occur locally as orai, egu, ondore."

      There is nothing barring this from being the case with this word.

      So contrary to your assertion...you are incorrect. My etymology is quite tenable exactly because of what Larry Trask stated.

      I tend to be rather thorough in my research as you well know. Before I posted it...I had to make sure it worked and could be supported by evidence which it is.

      Also, "prox. genitive" is used by Trask in his etymological dictionary.

      Delete
    24. I'm afraid Trask's assertion is more descriptive than explicative and it applies to *modern* Basque, not Paleo-Basque, where it existed the fortis/lenis distinction.

      I also remind you the word existed in Antiquity, as shown by Aquitanian OSSON-, OXSON- and the toponym Osson-oba. Why don't you accept the fact Basque has Afrasian loanwords, and more specifically Berber ones? I'm quit surprised you didn't make any comments about my proposed etymology of sagu 'mouse'.

      Delete
    25. Actually, Octavia, you answered your own question. Yes, this distinction existed in earlier forms of Basque, but were lost in Modern Basque which could be why the would-be fortis word-final -n was lost. The word is without a doubt quite old and as such might be subject to that very occasional loss of a normally fortis word-final -n.

      I accept that there maybe Afroasiatic adoptions (I decided that I prefer "adopted word" and/ or adoption instead of "loan/ loanword/ borrowing") in Basque, just not very ancient ones. The age of Modern Berber, the age of the Y-DNA E1b1b1b signature, the knowledge of Berber having come from the east, and well-known proto-Berber adoptions into Nubian in the 3rd millenium BCE all speak against such an early adoption. Vaclav Blazek in his paper, "Toward the Discussion of the Berber-Nubian Parallels", says the words, in Nubian, are more probably adopted on the proto-Berber level from Berber into Proto-Nubian. The early Egyptian dynasties had run-ins with the ancient Berbers who were to their south at that time...the T_emehu, who lived west of the 4th cataract of the Nile (Cataracts of the Nile). Mr. Blazek further states, that the T_emehu were likely the northern neighbors of the ancestors of the Nubians. Moreover, the T_emehu moved northward to the 3rd and 2nd cataracts from west of the 4th cataract and contact zone with the ancestors of the modern Nubians, the Wadi al-Milk. Mr. Blazek further says, the T_emehu have been identified with the so-styled, "C-Group." You can find the Wadi al Milk directly south of Kerma and Dongola on the map.

      I will find the "sagu" post and read it before I comment. Thank you for opening the thread up to further comment, Octavia.

      Delete
    26. Adyghe, not all word-final nasals were fortis, as in this case. In fact, the rhotatised form (quoted by you) uxsor would be a consequence of that.

      BTW, the word sapo is also of Afrasina origin.

      Delete
    27. Then what are we debating here then? The word can just as likely be Vasconic.

      Delete
  10. "If Basque nagusi is a Semitic loanword, the only plausible source can be Phoenician, whose form would be similar to the the Hebrew one, And the fact the word isn't recorded in the known texts doesn't imply it didn't exist in that language."

    Let's not forget, this word is neither attested in Ugaritic which is also rather close to both Hebrew and Phoenician. We have a huge Ugaritic corpus, strange it is not found there. This makes it possible that it could be absent from Phoenician also. The Hebrew word is also a rarely used one.

    "Like other language families, Berber had also a prehistory you can't ignore. And certaintly Berber already existed when Phoenicians, and later Romans, came to NW Africa. I'd recommend you read this doctoral thesis (in Catalan): La llengua amaziga a l'antiguitat a partir de les fonts gregues i llatines."

    I think you misunderstand. I am not saying that Berber did not exist when the Phoenicians came upon then. In my posts, it should have been clearly implied that I knew they were there when the Phoenicians arrived.

    The prehistory of Berber begins in the East no earlier than 3600BCE (5600ybp) if we go by the genetic signatures that are considered typical...facts are facts. Also Lameen Souag, has stated that Proto-Berber (the ancestor of the modern dialects) is about as old as the Romance languages give or take, however the language family itself may be much older and from the East.

    This poses problems for your loanwords coming from the ancestor of the modern Berber dialects. We know nothing about other Berber languages, except, Numidian which is Afroasiatic and Berber, but not like Modern Berber dialects...more like a sister to them.

    "The term "Aquitanian" actually refers to an epigraphic corpus, not properly a language. But in that corpus there's an isogloss t- ~ h- which is a particular case of Martinet's Law and splits that linguistic domain in two different dialects, one more conservative and closer to Iberian (it not Iberian itself) and another one closer to Basque, that is, Paleo-Basque)."

    Thanks for that clarification, Octavia. :)

    "I've already told you Bengtson's etymology is *wrong* by showing how his purported link between Caucasian *tsa:rggwɨ: (˜ -ǝ:, -a:) 'weasel, marten' and Basque sagu 'mouse' is flawed, but you apparently ignored that. Sorry, but this is simply too bad.

    I am sorry, but it is not too bad. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is grossly absurd and anti-/ un-intellectual. Just because one is flawed doesn't mean they are all flawed. I actually forgot to post a comment on that in my rush to finish my posts. Of all his etymologies, as I said and others have said, this one is actually strong. What is needed is a legitimate reason this etymology is implausible...you have not given it. Just saying, "Because I say it is wrong...", is not science nor is it, in anyway, acceptable.

    "I've written about the Caucasian word here."

    I thank you for the link...that adds greatly to my assertion that the "BMAC substrate" is not one language, but several. That word is considered part of the substrate. Great work, Octavia! :) You saved me hours of research. I have, also, discovered the linguistic origins of a "BMAC substrate" animal...in fact, I just did that a few hours ago while scouring through the DED(R).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I told you before, *most* of Bengtson's etymologies are wrong. There's a number of reasons for this, including his little or null knowledge about the prehistory of Basque and its interactions with Celtic, Iberian and early Romance. If I mentioned that Caucasian word it's precisely because it's a counterexample of his purported "deletion of r", not to mention other phonetic issues. So if you think Bengtson's etymology is "strong", I'd say it's a *crackpot* one,

      On the other hand, Basque // in otso (Aquitanian oxson, osson) is a voiceless apico-alveolar affricate reflecting Berber ʃʃ. I'd also strongly recommend you read Carles Múrcia's thesis before jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

      Delete
  11. Hola, Octavia!

    Okay, you made your point about Bengston. Point is duly noted, though, Basque's phonotactics would exactly fit with some of the NE Caucasian terms, one has to admit this even if Bengston's etymology is seriously flawed. Sergei Starostin's understanding of North Caucasian is excellent, so I do not question his etymology concerning the North Caucasian root for wolf. Do you have a beef with Sergei Starostin's methods?

    "Basque /tś/ in otso (Aquitanian oxson, osson) is a voiceless apico-alveolar affricate reflecting Berber ʃʃ. I'd also strongly recommend you read Carles Múrcia's thesis before jumping to unwarranted conclusions"

    Yes, I knew about that. One needs to explain the phonological process(es) underlying the deletion of the word-final /n/ (-n) in Basque. As far as I understand Basque phonology, that should not happen. It presumes that the word-final /n/ (-n) was originally intervocalic, but what happened to the last vowel, was it assimilated, dropped, or did it ever exist? It is perplexing.

    Thank you for the massive pdfs, hahaha. I have added them to my Afroasiatic database. I have been studying Afroasiatic and African population studies because of my Meroitic studies as you know. I have a huge database of papers if you would like some of them just request it. So, as far as unwarranted conclusions is concerned, I think the facts about Berber have been fairly established and if you disagree with them, you should prove them incorrect. I do not disagree that there are Berber words in the Ibero-Romance lexicon that may have been passed to Basque. Where we disagree is the time period, pre-Phoenician vs. post-Latin.

    .......................................................................

    After some more research since I first began writing this post. Apparently, the deletion of word-medial /r/ (-r-) is common in Northeast Caucasian and there, apparently, is a logical process to explain it. I can not find it online, but I am sure it exists as Sergei Starostin was no slouch on these matters. I think it is in the North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary actually. As far as this applies to Macro-/ Vasco-Caucasian and Basque, I am not sure of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Basque's phonotactics would exactly fit with some of the NE Caucasian terms,
      The thing is Basque, like Burushaski and Sino-Tibetan, is NOT a Caucasian language. Caucasian and Vasco-/Dene-/Sino-/Macro-Caucasian aren't synonyms,

      On the other hand, I've already written about the supposed "deletion of medial -r-" in Basque, but apparently you keep ignoring it. I warn you not to bring *crackpot* stuff here,

      Sergei Starostin's understanding of North Caucasian is excellent, so I do not question his etymology concerning the North Caucasian root for wolf. Do you have a beef with Sergei Starostin's methods?
      Starostin has a bad reputation among historical linguists for sloppy reconstructions. I've detected myself some flaws in his Caucasian etymologies. For example, he took the isolated Lezghian (Tabarasan) form barči 'tracking dog, bloodhound', which is clearly related to 'wolf', and linked instead to Avar čiba 'bitch' in order to build a new Caucasian root.

      One needs to explain the phonological process(es) underlying the deletion of the word-final /n/ (-n) in Basque. As far as I understand Basque phonology, that should not happen.
      Being rare doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact, gizon 'man' (a loanword from Gaulish gdonjo-) has a combinatory variant giza- where the final nasal is dropped.

      It presumes that the word-final /n/ (-n) was originally intervocalic
      Not exactly. It means it was lenis like those intervocallic nasals which disappeared (fortis nasals don't do so).

      Thank you for the massive pdfs, hahaha. I have added them to my Afroasiatic database.
      I still think you should read them.

      So, as far as unwarranted conclusions is concerned, I think the facts about Berber have been fairly established and if you disagree with them, you should prove them incorrect.
      Unfortunately, genes and words very often tell us different stories, so subordinating linguistics to genetics is a very bad idea.

      I do not disagree that there are Berber words in the Ibero-Romance lexicon that may have been passed to Basque. Where we disagree is the time period, pre-Phoenician vs. post-Latin.
      Actually, we're dealing with Berber loanwords in IBERIAN (not Ibero-Romance) and Aquitanian/Paleo-Basque, as well as the other way around.

      Delete
  12. Hola Octavia!

    Sorry for the delay...I have been working on my Meroitic paper. I think I made a break through with the supposed Meroitic word for "dog". It is not phonologically possible for Egyptian to have borrowed the word. This is sort of bittersweet because one could argue that the loss of the word-medial "fricative" is evidence for the inclusion in Northern Eastern Sudanic (Nilo-Saharan family to which Nubian belongs), but this is also an apparent trait of some Afroasiatic languages.

    "The thing is Basque, like Burushaski and Sino-Tibetan, is NOT a Caucasian language. Caucasian and Vasco-/Dene-/Sino-/Macro-Caucasian aren't synonyms...On the other hand, I've already written about the supposed "deletion of medial -r-" in Basque, but apparently you keep ignoring it. I warn you not to bring *crackpot* stuff here,"

    I am well-aware of the differences, thank you. My statement was directed at the word-medial /-r-/-less words. If those words are to be separated to a different root then that root would easily accommodate Bengston's etymology. Proto-Avaro-Andian: *boc̣o, Proto-Tsezian: *bɔc̣ǝ, Proto-Dargwa: *bec̣ "wolf" would derive from an apparently different root (NOT from Proto-North Caucasian: *bħĕrc̣ĭ (~ -ĕ) "wolf, jackal" to which Proto-Nakh: *bɦorc̣, Proto-Lak: barc̣ would belong) and that root could be related to the Vasconic one. That is what I was saying.

    Also, I knew nothing about your writing about the supposed loss of word-medial /-r-/ in Basque. :)

    You have no need to warn me about *crackpot* stuff, Octavia, I am not a partaker in *crackpot* theories. So please do not go there with me. Not everything you post on your blog is free of *crackpot*-ery, I hope you know this.

    "Starostin has a bad reputation among historical linguists for sloppy reconstructions. I've detected myself some flaws in his Caucasian etymologies. For example, he took the isolated Lezghian (Tabarasan) form barči 'tracking dog, bloodhound', which is clearly related to 'wolf', and linked instead to Avar čiba 'bitch' in order to build a new Caucasian root."

    Strange, that many people still use his work including you.

    "Being rare doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact, gizon 'man' (a loanword from Gaulish gdonjo-) has a combinatory variant giza- where the final nasal is dropped."

    I noticed that in going through Trask's Basque Etymological Dictionary.

    "Not exactly. It means it was lenis like those intervocallic nasals which disappeared (fortis nasals don't do so)."

    Hmmm.

    Also I could not find where in Basque the assimilation of /w/ to /u/ = /o/. I looked for phonological charts and the like and none that I found mentioned any such thing.

    Also you mentioned vowel harmony in Basque. This is, as far as I could find, a thing of speculation on the part of Lakarra. "I have some doubts whether we are really dealing with vowel harmony in Basque, as the application is extremely restricted in few morphological classes and categories and, moreover, the domain is not necessarily the whole word. For typology of vowel harmony cf. Redei (1977). How far the loss of vowel harmony might be an index for the loss of agglutinization still has to be an object of research." ~ B. Hurch 2013 - Is Basque a syllable-timed language?




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also I could not find where in Basque the assimilation of /w/ to /u/ = /o/. I looked for phonological charts and the like and none that I found mentioned any such thing.
      You said yourself "Aquitanian" was in some respects similar to Basque but quite different in others. This is mostly due to the influence of other Pre-Basque languages. And there're actual examples of vowel harmony in historical Basque, especially in the easternmost dialects (Roncalese, Zuberoan).

      Delete
    2. My statement was directed at the word-medial /-r-/-less words. If those words are to be separated to a different root then that root would easily accommodate Bengston's etymology. Proto-Avaro-Andian: *boc̣o, Proto-Tsezian: *bɔc̣ǝ, Proto-Dargwa: *bec̣ "wolf" would derive from an apparently different root (NOT from Proto-North Caucasian: *bħĕrc̣ĭ (~ -ĕ) "wolf, jackal" to which Proto-Nakh: *bɦorc̣, Proto-Lak: barc̣ would belong) and that root could be related to the Vasconic one. That is what I was saying.
      Don't forget also isolated Lezghian (Tabarasan) form barči 'tracking dog, bloodhound', which is clearly related to 'wolf'.

      To me, not only it's rather absurd to reconstruct two separate Caucasian roots for 'wolf' but also to link them to Basque. Sorry, but you'd better forget about that supposed "Vasco-Caucasian" etymology.

      You have no need to warn me about *crackpot* stuff, Octavia, I am not a partaker in *crackpot* theories.
      Ha, ha, ha. I still remember your fixation on Galician-Portuguese silva being derived from Latin.

      Not everything you post on your blog is free of *crackpot*-ery, I hope you know this.
      Yes, and unlike other so-called linguists, I'm capable of learning from my own mistakes. :-)

      Strange, that many people still use his work including you.
      Despite its flaws, I still think Starostin's work is valuable, but it should be used with *caution*, especially his long-range etymologies ("Sino-Caucasian" or otherwise)

      .I noticed that in going through Trask's Basque Etymological Dictionary.
      Actually, Trask's work is based on previous researches such as Mitxelena and Coromines, so he repeats their mistakes. Also notice the large number of words labelled as "of unknown origin" (OUO) or "expressive". So for the most part this isn't actually an etymological dictionary bur rather a fiction.


      Delete
    3. Also, I knew nothing about your writing about the supposed loss of word-medial /-r-/ in Basque. :)
      I already mentioned Bengtson's (not **Bengston) wrong link between Caucasian Caucasian *tsa:rggwɨ: (˜ -ǝ:, -a:) 'weasel, marten' and Basque sagu 'mouse'. The former is actually related to Altaic *tHàrba 'marmot' and Basque erbi 'hare', with loss of the initial stop by Martinet's Law.

      Delete
  13. part II

    "I still think you should read them."
    I did. What was I supposed to get out of them? Most of what was in the thesis I had already known and even mentioned here. I did get some new Berber words to add to the list of Afroasiatic cognates in Meroitic.

    "Unfortunately, genes and words very often tell us different stories, so subordinating linguistics to genetics is a very bad idea."

    Spoken like someone who doesn't like the fact that the genes militate against his pet theory. In this instance, the genes ARE correlated with the language speakers. It is not about subordinating language to genes...it is about how they are related and or not and what that means for certain theories. I have said before, the application of the different sciences, involved here, in unison is what is best.

    "Actually, we're dealing with Berber loanwords in IBERIAN (not Ibero-Romance) and Aquitanian/Paleo-Basque, as well as the other way around."

    Not sure about that yet. You should amend your blog post with the necessary caveats to your proposal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? I'm posting more and more evidences of early contacts between Paleo-Hispanic and Berber.

      Delete
  14. "Ha, ha, ha. I still remember your fixation on Galician-Portuguese silva being derived from Latin."

    It IS derived from Latin. I have not changed my mind about that. Explanatory parsimony and dictates that it must be due to semantic shift. Again, even Mr. Valerio (I don't have the correct letter on my keyboard to do the accent) disagrees with you also. Appealing to a substrate language is not wise at this point. If you can prove that there is a consistent non-Vascoid substrate throughout Galician and Portuguese then you have my attention. That post evidenced the *crackpot*-ery I spoke of.

    "I already mentioned Bengtson's (not **Bengston) wrong link between Caucasian Caucasian *tsa:rggwɨ: (˜ -ǝ:, -a:) 'weasel, marten' and Basque sagu 'mouse'. The former is actually related to Altaic *tHàrba 'marmot' and Basque erbi 'hare', with loss of the initial stop by Martinet's Law."

    Wow, excuse my typo, BENGTSON. I agree with you about that post. I did concede your point.

    "Yes, and unlike other so-called linguists, I'm capable of learning from my own mistakes. :-)"

    You did not learn from the "Olive" post nor did you learn from the "Silva" post. I, also, I have a very recent paper (like published just a couple of months ago) on the Armenian language which says the Greek word for "Olive" is not IE. I can link you to it if you would like.

    "Really? I'm posting more and more evidences of early contacts between Paleo-Hispanic and Berber."

    I responded to the one about "tonto" on your other blog. It is not Berber. It is securely Latin and IE. As much as I love Afroasiatic, that word is not derived from it.

    As I said, there are still some phonological issues with your colleague's suggestion(s) and really it is no better than anything Bengtson has adduced. You really should be intellectually honest with your blog readers and respect their intellects better. You should place the necessary caveats to your blog post, but, again, it is your blog.

    Also, I was adducing the separate roots as an example...not saying that they should be split and besides that Afroasiatic has several roots for "wolf"...why not North Caucasian? What harm would it do? Also, I linked them to Basque because Basque is supposedly part of the Vasco-/ Macro-Caucasian theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You did not learn from the "Olive" post nor did you learn from the "Silva" post.
      Actually, your criticism motivates me to improve my work. This is why I've just written a new "silva" post. :-)

      I, also, I have a very recent paper (like published just a couple of months ago) on the Armenian language which says the Greek word for "Olive" is not IE. I can link you to it if you would like.
      As you might already know, I'm little tolerant with authority arguments. I thinkyou're too uncritical with academic guys.

      I responded to the one about "tonto" on your other blog. It is not Berber. It is securely Latin and IE.
      Sorry, but it isn't. You're utterly wrong. See my answer there.

      As I said, there are still some phonological issues with your colleague's suggestion(s) and really it is no better than anything Bengtson has adduced.
      I strongly disagree. Both phonetics and geography are against Bengtson's proposal.

      You really should be intellectually honest with your blog readers and respect their intellects better. You should place the necessary caveats to your blog post, but, again, it is your blog.
      Yes, it is, and I've been very tolerant with you, despite your boldness, which is rather annoying.

      Also, I linked them to Basque because Basque is supposedly part of the Vasco-/ Macro-Caucasian theory.
      As a matter of fact, the Caucasian 'wolf' doesn't have cognates in Burushaski nor in Tibeto-Burman (the Sinitic word could be a loanword), so it's most unlikely to be from Vasco-/Macro-Caucasian. As I told you before, not all the Caucasian lexicon isfrom that origin, much less the Basque one.

      Delete
    2. "Actually, your criticism motivates me to improve my work. This is why I've just written a new "silva" post. :-)"

      :)

      "As you might already know, I'm little tolerant with authority arguments. I think you're too uncritical with academic guys."

      We had that discussion before.

      "Sorry, but it isn't. You're utterly wrong. See my answer there."

      Well, we will see...my rebuttal is posted there.

      "I strongly disagree. Both phonetics and geography are against Bengtson's proposal."

      Genes, history/ chronology, and phonology disagree with you and your colleague. The assimilation of /w/ to /u/ = /o/ was never explained and you simply passed over the quote I posed to you about so-called vowel harmony. "I have some doubts whether we are really dealing with vowel harmony in Basque, as the application is extremely restricted in few morphological classes and categories and, moreover, the domain is not necessarily the whole word. For typology of vowel harmony cf. Redei (1977). How far the loss of vowel harmony might be an index for the loss of agglutinization still has to be an object of research." ~ B. Hurch 2013 - Is Basque a syllable-timed language?

      "Yes, it is, and I've been very tolerant with you, despite your boldness, which is rather annoying."

      I have been honest with you. I will not stop being honest because you find it annoying. Stroking egos is my purpose in engaging you. It is a mutual sharpening of skills for which I appreciate your tolerance for.

      "As a matter of fact, the Caucasian 'wolf' doesn't have cognates in Burushaski nor in Tibeto-Burman (the Sinitic word could be a loanword), so it's most unlikely to be from Vasco-/Macro-Caucasian. As I told you before, not all the Caucasian lexicon isfrom that origin, much less the Basque one."

      It does not have to be shared across the entire family for it to be Macro-Caucasian. There are words not shared by every member of Afroasiatic, but they are securely Afroasiatic. There are words that are more widespread in Nilo-Saharan and attested in 1 or 2 Afroasiatic languages but because of phonological reasons are securely Afroasiatic and the Nilo-Saharan languages are the borrowers. Also, Sino-Tibetan (not merely Tibeto-Burman) is not Macro-Caucasian.

      Delete
    3. Genes, history/chronology, and phonology disagree with you and your colleague.
      I disagree. Time (chronology) and space (geography) are good. As I said before, genes and languages doesn't have to be correlated.

      The assimilation of /w/ to /u/ = /o/ was never explained and you simply passed over the quote I posed to you about so-called vowel harmony.
      As I said before, this isn't a Basque issue, because the word is attested in "Tartessian", Iberian and Paleo-Basque (aka "Aquitanian").

      I have been honest with you. I will not stop being honest because you find it annoying. Stroking egos is my purpose in engaging you. It is a mutual sharpening of skills for which I appreciate your tolerance for.
      Unfortunately, my tolerance isn't infinite, so you should stop "stroking egos" when I ask you to do so.

      It does not have to be shared across the entire family for it to be Macro-Caucasian.
      Unlike e.g. Afrasian, Macro-Caucasian (aka Sino-/Dene-/Vasco-Caucasian) is a *hypothetical* macro-family or phylum whose internal structure is largely unkown because most of its members are extinct. Moreover, the Basque lexicon discernably Macro-Caucasian is only a tiny portion of the total, buried by several loanword strata.

      Also, Sino-Tibetan (not merely Tibeto-Burman) is not Macro-Caucasian.
      I disagree. In fact, Sino-Tibetan could be an offspring node of Caucasian, unless it underwent massive loanwords (e.g. 'dog' and '6').

      Delete
    4. I have been honest with you. I will not stop being honest because you find it annoying.
      Then I'm also going to be honest with you. I think you're terribly bad as a linguist, notably because you copy the mistakes of those who you regard as "authorities".

      Delete
  15. Correction: Stroking egos is NOT my purpose in engaging you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Spanish we say "tocar los huevos" (=balls), you know.

      Delete
  16. Hola, Octavia!

    I have not been 'touching anyone's eggs', hahahaha

    It is an issue because I have not read anywhere where in Iberian /w/ assimilates to /u/ to make /o/. I had to read a great deal about Iberian, even in Spanish and Portuguese, to know these things. Thank God for Google Translate and other translators. No one has mentioned anything about evident vowel harmony in Aquitanian or Iberian. We have enough Iberian inscriptions to determine that. As for "Taretssian", if indeed it was Iberian of some type, which is not conclusively determined yet, but no evidence for any seeming vowel harmony there either. There are enough known "Tartessian" inscriptions to make SOME hypothesis about it's phonology, morphology, and classification. The evidence for Aquitanian is more or less onomastic, but even within that, some clues can be distilled from it. No one mentions vowel harmony. You now have to prove that these phonological traits, assimilation of /w/ to /u/ = /o/ and even vowel harmony by itself, are not merely a result of the loss of agglutinization in Basque. Not much else can be said about Aquitanian, "Tartessian", and Iberian until more of the languages are found.

    When I say Macro-Caucasian, I speak of strictly Vasconic, Burushaski, and the Northeast Caucasian languages. I am not so sure that the Northwest Caucasian languages belong. At the time depth at which these languages are supposed to have diverged there are massive changes that would have occurred obscuring any immediate relationship with any known languages. I do not think that Sino-Tibetan is that closely related to Northeast Caucasian. much of what seems like a close relationship may in fact be chance based on the nature of those languages. Just like when V. Shevoroshkin compared Salishan to the reconstructed North Caucasian language adduced by S. Starostin.

    I also noticed you did not mention phonology in that list of things that was in the right place.

    For now, I will leave this debate unsettled. I think the evidences speak against this word being anciently Berber-derived in Basque. We will see where the evidence leads apart from opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is an issue because I have not read anywhere where in Iberian /w/ assimilates to /u/ to make /o/. I had to read a great deal about Iberian, even in Spanish and Portuguese, to know these things. [...] You now have to prove that these phonological traits, assimilation of /w/ to /u/ = /o/ and even vowel harmony by itself, are not merely a result of the loss of agglutinization in Basque.
    I don't understand what you mean by that, but I personally won't bother so much for vocalism as for consonantism.

    I think the evidences speak against this word being anciently Berber-derived in Basque.
    On the contrary, it's a reasonable etymology based on the available data, something which can't said of Bengtson's. I think you put the cart before the horse, as it's precisely these and other correspondences which allow us to dwelve into the unknown past.

    When I say Macro-Caucasian, I speak of strictly Vasconic, Burushaski, and the Northeast Caucasian languages.
    Don't forget extinct languages such as Hurro-Urartian, Etruscan and the Aegean group. I'd also add "Nostratic" in the Taurus-Zagros area (I'd recommend you review this post).

    At the time depth at which these languages are supposed to have diverged there are massive changes that would have occurred obscuring any immediate relationship with any known languages.
    NWC has only 2 vowels and an extraordinarily rich consonant inventory. According to Chirikba, whose book I bought some years ago (and I'd recommend to do the same if you're genuinely interested) this can be explained from the assimilation of consonants to the following vowel in open syllables, so that they were palatalaized before front vowels and labialized before back vowels. This lead to a drastic reduction of the vowel inventory because of dephonologization, as consonants retained the distinctive traits. Probably by adstrate influence, paleo-IE suffered a similar process as regarding "labiovelars".

    But what most bothers me is that is NWC lexicon is largely made of monosyllablic roots and prefixes. I think this could be a very relic.

    I do not think that Sino-Tibetan is that closely related to Northeast Caucasian. much of what seems like a close relationship may in fact be chance based on the nature of those languages.
    I think your last statement would be better applied to Basque. Sino-Tibetan and Caucasian are geographically close and I'm sure they interchanged loanwords such as 'dog' (of which I've already written) and '6'.

    Just like when V. Shevoroshkin compared Salishan to the reconstructed North Caucasian language adduced by S. Starostin.
    This is no joke. Although Shevoroshkin's proposal that the ancestors of Salishans fled from the Caucasus at an absurdly late chronology can't be accepted, it would point to a common Eastern Asia origin for thw whole macro-family.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I don't understand what you mean by that, but I personally won't bother so much for vocalism as for consonantism."

    That statement was tied to the quote a gave you from an author in a paper about vowel harmony in Basque and the proposed assimilation of /w/ to /u/ = /o/.

    "On the contrary, it's a reasonable etymology based on the available data, something which can't said of Bengtson's. I think you put the cart before the horse, as it's precisely these and other correspondences which allow us to dwelve into the unknown past."

    We will see. I leave this open for future debate. I am not convinced of Berber VERY ANCIENTLY contributing this word, for example pre-Phoenician contact. The word seems too old to be Berber-derived based on genes and not to mention some unanswered phonological obstacles.

    "Don't forget extinct languages such as Hurro-Urartian, Etruscan and the Aegean group. I'd also add "Nostratic" in the Taurus-Zagros area (I'd recommend you review this post)."

    Well, yes, but I was speaking of the extant languages. Also, I have access to Chirikba's materials. :)

    "I think your last statement would be better applied to Basque. Sino-Tibetan and Caucasian are geographically close and I'm sure they interchanged loanwords such as 'dog' (of which I've already written) and '6'."

    Actually, they are situated nearly equidistant from the Caucasus and there are mountainous obstacles in either direction.

    "This is no joke. Although Shevoroshkin's proposal that the ancestors of Salishans fled from the Caucasus at an absurdly late chronology can't be accepted, it would point to a common Eastern Asia origin for thw whole macro-family."

    Salishan has eye-poppingly complicated consonant clusters and is an isolate language. I regard this like I regard all such proposals...neutrally. It reminds me of Arnaud Fournet comparing Eyak (Na-Dene) and Uralic. His proposal of a Proto-Yeniseian hydronym actually being Uralic in origin I very strongly support though.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not convinced of Berber VERY ANCIENTLY contributing this word, for example pre-Phoenician contact. The word seems too old to be Berber-derived based on genes and not to mention some unanswered phonological obstacles.
      On the contrary, neither genes nor phonology aren't a major problem. Don't forget also there were not only loanwords from Paleo-Berber into Paleo-Hispanic, but also in the opposite direction.

      Also no amount of gene flow can prove the existence of the hypothetical Macro-Caucasian phylum.

      Actually, they are situated nearly equidistant from the Caucasus and there are mountainous obstacles in either direction.
      If you remember the case of 'dog', we can trace it as a Wanderwort in several languages. In my opinion, its presence in Caucasian and Sino-Tibetan would point to interchanges among nomadic shepherds in Central Asian Highlands.

      Delete
  19. "On the contrary, neither genes nor phonology aren't a major problem. Don't forget also there were not only loanwords from Paleo-Berber into Paleo-Hispanic, but also in the opposite direction. Also no amount of gene flow can prove the existence of the hypothetical Macro-Caucasian phylum."

    I would never say that genes can prove the hypothetical Macro-Caucasian.family. I know far better than that. In fact, I have never said that. I am more or less neutral on the issue. The major issue, upon which you stand virtually alone, is that Berber was spoken in Iberia in prehistoric times. None of the ancients even mention such a people. Such a people would have had to survive into the Greek and Roman times. Before Latin swept away much of the traces of other languages in the peninsula.

    Also note this, "Two sibilants — either fricative or affricate — have regularly resulted in an affricate (FHV: 350-351). In the case of both sibilants being homorganic, the resulting affricate would also share their place of articulation (ez-zen > etzen ‘it was not’, ez-zara > etzara ‘you are not’, etc.), while a cluster formed by an apical followed by a laminal yields an apical affricate (*diots-zut > diotsut ‘I tellyou’, *ekus-zu > akutsu ‘see (you)’, *sinhets-zazu > sinetsu ‘believe (you,imp.)’, *hauts-tzaile > hautsaile ‘breaker’. However, Michelena (FHV: 351) finds no clear examples of two heterosyllabic sibilants yielding a laminal, but instead one which suggests the opposite: S.= egütseme < *eguz-seme ‘godson’(cf. egüzaita ‘godfather’); cf. also the etymologies *hortz-so > otso ‘wolf’ and *hartz-so > atso ‘old woman’, proposed by Lakarra. Any cluster involving a prepalatal sibilant would have a prepalatal outcome, regardless of its etymological position: *deretx-zun > B. deretxun ‘that you think’, but also gantxingor < *gantz-txingor ‘crackling’. (Ander Egurtzegi ~ 2013a - [Basque and Proto-Basque] Phonetics and Phonology)

    I can see what Lakarra did there with "otso". "Hortz" means '(incisor) tooth' in Basque and "-so" is a kinship suffix

    The same scenario happened with Sumerian. Where many postulated a Pre-Sumerian substrate without giving due consideration to the fact that many of the words in question may, in fact, have been Sumerian innovations and Sumerian haplographic compounds.

    There are also matches in Afroasiatic - Egyptian, Western Saharan - Songhay (Nilo-Saharan?), Central Sudanic - Nilo-Saharan, Northern Eastern Sudanic - Taman and Nara, and Eastern Sudanic - Daju to the Basque word for "wolf". The Nilo-Saharans were presumably part of the "Green Sahara" complex. So why not postulate a very ancient Nilo-Saharan loan into the Iberian peninsula? It is just as valid as the Berber proposal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The major issue, upon which you stand virtually alone, is that Berber was spoken in Iberia in prehistoric times. None of the ancients even mention such a people. ple. Such a people would have had to survive into the Greek and Roman times.
      In my old school days, we were told "Iberians" came from North Africa.

      I can see what Lakarra did there with "otso". "Hortz" means '(incisor) tooth' in Basque and "-so" is a kinship suffix.
      Sorry, but this is *crackpot* stuff, contradicted by Aquitanian oxson, osson.

      So why not postulate a very ancient Nilo-Saharan loan into the Iberian peninsula? It is just as valid as the Berber proposal.
      Don't be ridiculous.

      Delete
  20. "In my old school days, we were told "Iberians" came from North Africa."

    Which is part of that ridiculous, Berber-Basque theory, which has been discredited many times. It is also based on partial science. The notion that the Iberomarusians (an unfortunate name) are connected with Iberian Peninsula in any serious way. They are not. They are largely confined to North Africa and some derivatives are found in Iberia. Before you get excited, there are NO Maurusian sites in Iberia and this group of people lived before Afroasiatic even existed and ended before Afroasiatic had broken up.

    "Sorry, but this is *crackpot* stuff, contradicted by Aquitanian oxson, osson."

    There is that terrible thing you do again, but anyway. Again, it just adduced as an example of how the word could be a Basque innovation from from native terms.

    "Don't be ridiculous."

    hahaha! Not being ridiculous. Just stating facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is part of that ridiculous, Berber-Basque theory, which has been discredited many times. It is also based on partial science.
      Not really. It's a serious theory, bases upon lexical similarities.

      The notion that the Iberomarusians (an unfortunate name) are connected with Iberian Peninsula in any serious way.
      Iberomaurusian? You can't be serious. We were speaking of E-M81, which is roughly 5600 BP.

      Again, it just adduced as an example of how the word could be a Basque innovation from from native terms.
      It can't be so because of the ancient evidence, which is dismissed by Lakarra. It looks like isolationist Vascologists pretend Basque was brought by some extraterrestrial beings who landed with their UFO at Roman times (hence the Latin loanwords).

      Delete
  21. "Then I'm also going to be honest with you. I think you're terribly bad as a linguist, notably because you copy the mistakes of those who you regard as "authorities".

    I fully accept your criticism. Again, this discussion has been had before. I will restraint my tongue and just say this to you...we should be careful about what we say because we may be strongly guilty of the same, Octavia. :) That is why I warn you against the word *crackpot*. Mirrors don't reflect nice things sometimes. :) Honesty is good, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's the Spanish saying: "quien dice las verdades pierde las amistades", which freely translated into English would be "be honest and you'll lose your friends".

      Delete
  22. "There's the Spanish saying: "quien dice las verdades pierde las amistades", which freely translated into English would be "be honest and you'll lose your friends"."

    Also understood.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Not really. It's a serious theory, bases upon lexical similarities."

    There are lexical similarities between Afroasiatic (non-Semitic) and Dravidian, but that does not mean that Afroasiatic was spoken in the Subcontinent or that Dravidian was spoken in Northeastern Africa or in the Near East. Although, I do believe that Dravidian is not native to India and that it migrated in from the Northwest. It is accepted that the closest external relationships Dravidian has is Afroasiatic and Elamite with Elamite being closer to Afroasiatic.

    Most of the similarities between the Basque and Berber lexicon are false and chance. Just like many have claimed an Afroasiatic substrate in Celtic. This was proven false. Afroasiatic, of any kind, has an infinitesimal, if at all, relation with Basque.

    "Iberomaurusian? You can't be serious. We were speaking of E-M81, which is roughly 5600 BP."

    Hahaha, Octavia, this was not my idea. I am telling you where some "scholars' get their ideas. Like I said, the Berber-Basque theory is based upon PARTIAL science. No serious linguist actually believes Basque and Berber are related.

    Also, that has been my point all along, The language or dialect Modern Berber is derived from spread from east to west. Modern Berber is too young in the west to have contributed this word so early.

    Modern Berber is no older than Common Germanic (1st millenium BCE) or Vulgar Latin > Romance (4th to 8th centuries CE). Again, it came from the east as is evidenced by the Berber: *wVššVn ~ Egyptian: wnš ~ West Chadic: *(nV-)čaw- (Miltarev separates the West Chadic root from the Berber and Egyptian ones, but alludes to them possibly belonging through irregular correspondence. Orel, Stolbova places the Egyptian and West Chadic words together). What is highly interesting is that the Egyptian word is related to both, but the Berber word is apparently not related to the West Chadic word (irregular phonotactics). Then there is the Nilo-Saharan reconstruction by Christopher Ehret: * 1436. *'wɛ̀ns "dog", Western Saharan: Songay: hansi "dog", Eastern Sudanic: Astaboran: Nara: wos "dog", Eastern Sudanic: Astaboran: Taman: Merarit: wiis "dog”, Eastern Sudanic: Kir-Abbaian: proto-Daju: *iise “dog”. In my opinion, they are Afroasiatic. Nilo-Saharan: *'wɛ̀ns "dog" is terribly close to Egyptian: wnš. Phonotactically, the root words could not have been borrowed by Afroasiatic. They may be only extremely close lookalikes phonetically and semantically though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of the similarities between the Basque and Berber lexicon are false and chance.
      This sounds like an ex-cathedra (i.e. "authority") statement. Actually, there're some genuine correspondences between both.

      Afroasiatic, of any kind, has an infinitesimal, if at all, relation with Basque.
      At least there're some traces of a Berber-like language once spoken in Iberia.

      Just like many have claimed an Afroasiatic substrate in Celtic.
      Insular Celtic, to be more precise.

      This was proven false.
      Really? How so? What do we actually know about the languages spoken by people from the Megalithic culture?

      Like I said, the Berber-Basque theory is based upon PARTIAL science. No serious linguist actually believes Basque and Berber are related.
      In the old days when "lexicostatistics" was fashion, Basque was compared to both Berber and "Caucasian" (which at that time not only included North Caucasian but also Kartvelian).

      Also, that has been my point all along, The language or dialect Modern Berber is derived from spread from east to west. Modern Berber is too young in the west to have contributed this word so early. Modern Berber is no older than Common Germanic (1st millenium BCE) or Vulgar Latin > Romance (4th to 8th centuries CE).
      Possibly, but this doesn't imply it was a newcomer in NW Africa. And nobody thinks Paleo-Hispanic borrowed the word from modern Berber, just as those pre-Latin looanwords in Hispano-Romance languages aren't from modern Basque.

      What is highly interesting is that the Egyptian word is related to both, but the Berber word is apparently not related to the West Chadic word (irregular phonotactics).
      Correction: by way of common inheritance.

      Delete
    2. "This sounds like an ex-cathedra (i.e. "authority") statement. Actually, there're some genuine correspondences between both."

      It is a statement of known truth.

      "Really? How so? What do we actually know about the languages spoken by people from the Megalithic culture?"

      http://www.jolr.ru/files/%28100%29jlr2012-8%28153-159%29.pdf
      Not sure if you have read this already.

      "Possibly, but this doesn't imply it was a newcomer in NW Africa. And nobody thinks Paleo-Hispanic borrowed the word from modern Berber, just as those pre-Latin looanwords in Hispano-Romance languages aren't from modern Basque."

      Sorry but the chronology does not match for this to be a prehistoric loanword. If it is a loanword, it was acquired during the historical period, not before then. Berber is about ~3480 (G. Starostin), ~3110 (Militarev) years old and split from Chadic nearly 8000 years ago, if read the chart correctly.

      Vaclav Blažek states in AFROASIATIC MIGRATIONS: LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE, "The oldest archaeological traces of a human settlement at the archipelago [Canary Islands] dated to c. 540 BCE are known from Tenerife; from the 6th cent. BCE should also be the most archaic inscriptions from Hierro (Pichler 2007, 57-59). Taking account of glottochronological dating of the disintegration of the Berber languages to the 7th cent. BCE (Blažek 2010), it is possible to see here the only process stimulated by the rise of the Phoenician influence spreading from the Mediterranean coast. The adaptation of the Phoenician script and borrowing of c. 20 cultural Canaanite words, with different reflexes in all Berber branches (i.e., adapted before the disintegration of Common Berber), support the causal connections of the described events. In this perspective it is probable the ancestors of the Berbers originally spread along the North African coast (cf. Mercier 1924 on ancient toponyms with Berber etymologies)."

      He further states, "In the 3rd and 2nd mill. BCE the linguistic traces of Berber related idioms appear in the Nile Valley. One witness is seen in c. 20 etymons in Nubian languages, all with good Berber etymologies (Blažek 2000). The Nubian lexemes are not limited to Nile Nubian but they are distributed in all Nubian branches. This means they would have been adopted before the disintegration of Nubian, dated to the 11th cent. BCE (Starostin 2010). The contact zone could be localized around the mouth of Wadi al-Milk in the Nile in North Sudan..." (Behrens 1984, 208, map 7.5; Blažek 2000, 40).

      "Correction: by way of common inheritance."

      Thank you, but you know what I meant, I know what I meant, and others could easily discern my words.

      Delete
    3. It is a statement of known truth.
      I'd say it's a falisifable statement.

      Sorry but the chronology does not match for this to be a prehistoric loanword. If it is a loanword, it was acquired during the historical period, not before then.
      I'm not sure about what you mean by "historical", but 1st millenium BCE would be OK.

      Berber is about ~3480 (G. Starostin), ~3110 (Militarev) years old and split from Chadic nearly 8000 years ago, if read the chart correctly.
      These are glottochronological estimations, to which I don't give much credit. Glottochronology isn't exactly a science, you know.

      Thank you, but you know what I meant, I know what I meant, and others could easily discern my words.
      I remind you this is my blog, and I think your statement could have misleaded some readers.

      http://www.jolr.ru/files/%28100%29jlr2012-8%28153-159%29.pdf
      Not sure if you have read this already.

      Ranko Matasović is generally a good linguist, but his adhesion to IE ortodoxy sometimes leads him to the wrong path. For example, his purported IE etymology of Celtic *bostā 'palm' is highly questionable, especially considering Berber *fus 'hand', East Chadic *pVs 'hand; arm'. Not to mention Basque bost '5' is a secondary development from the more widespread bortz.

      Delete
    4. Again, it came from the east as is evidenced by the Berber: *wVššVn ~ Egyptian: wnš ~ West Chadic: *(nV-)čaw- (Miltarev separates the West Chadic root from the Berber and Egyptian ones, but alludes to them possibly belonging through irregular correspondence. Orel, Stolbova places the Egyptian and West Chadic words together). What is highly interesting is that the Egyptian word is related to both, but the Berber word is apparently not related to the West Chadic word (irregular phonotactics).
      I agree with Militarev, as the West Chadic word is phonetically worlds apart from the other two.

      Then there is the Nilo-Saharan reconstruction by Christopher Ehret: * 1436. *´wɛ̀ns "dog", Western Saharan: Songay: hansi "dog", Eastern Sudanic: Astaboran: Nara: wos "dog", Eastern Sudanic: Astaboran: Taman: Merarit: wiis "dog”, Eastern Sudanic: Kir-Abbaian: proto-Daju: *iise “dog”. In my opinion, they are Afroasiatic.
      Really? An Egyptian-Berber isogloss is hardly unlikely to be Afrasian-native. Remember I told you Afrasian has borrowed a lot of lexicon from indigenous African languages.

      Delete
    5. Hola, Octavia!

      I figured as much about the Chadic word. Thank you for confirming my suspicions though.

      Yes, I think the word is Afroasiatic.

      There is a group of related terms actually.

      Proto-Afroasiatic: *ʔays ~ *ways- (Militarev) and the related Proto-Afroasiatic: *wVŝin- ~ *wVnVŝ ~ *wayŝ-an “wolf; jackal” (Militarev)

      There are a number of isoglosses under those roots, particularly Proto-Afroasiatic: *ʔays ~ *ways- including:

      Arabic: ’aws; Egyptian: iš; Proto-West Chadic: *ʔaS-; Proto-Highland East Cushitic: *waš-, *wis-, > Kambatta: woš-ičču; Bedauye/ Beja: yas, yáás, yaas; East Cushitic > Ts’amakko: ʔooše; South Cushitic > Iraqw: seʔay (metathesis); Proto-Omotic: *wayVs- , Omotic > Hozo: wiʃí; Ongota: oose “dog”, ʔóóše “African hunting dog or wild dog, jackal”...There are other isoglosses, but not typed here. There are EthioSemitic isoglosses, but they are borrowed from Cushitic. The Arabic isogloss maybe related to West Chadic: *'aw(a)c-/ *awc- "wolf, dog"...Afroasiatic: */c/ > Semitic: */s/, > West Chadic: */c/, however, metathectically could be related to the above roots.

      Also, Orel, Stolbova says that Egyptian: wnš is a metathesis of the Afroasiatic root *nVčuw- "wolf, jackal" > West Chadic: *(nV-)čaw-. We can confer what Militarev did with this root...Ongota: č̣aʕawa // čaahawa SLLE, rather metathetically related to i: Omotic > North > Mao: hā́c̣e, Omotic > North > Shinasha: aassa (Fl), ʔàacá, āṣa [Bnd Om 177], Omotic > North > Chara: āṣa < *Hawc̣/č̣ - and likely i?: Omotic > North > Male: wāci.

      The thing about Afroasiatic is that it is weird. It seems to have come from the east into Africa, but also seems to be native to northeastern Africa. The deepest layer of toponymy and hydronymy in that region seems to be Afroasiatic. The name Astaboras (the modern Atbara[h] river) is composed of Afroasiatic roots. Same with the Astapus/ Astabus and Astasobas. Also consider the non-Semitic Afroasiatic substrate in Sumerian, the Arabian peninsula, and non-Semitic contact with the Northeast Caucasian languages and Indo-European. Elamite MIGHT be a very ancient Afroasiatic branch according to Blazek.

      Delete
    6. I don't like the term "root", because of its implicit connotations of common inheritance. I'd prefer "protoform" because it's more neutral.

      Maybe you'd also like to read this Starostin's article about the affinities of Elamite: http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/elam.pdf

      Delete
    7. Hola, Octavia!

      Okay, I will agree with you and use "protoform"...it does sound more neutral. It is a good coinage.

      Thank you, I have read that article and I have it in my database. It is rather striking the closeness of Elamite to Afroasiatic in general. Even many of the pronouns have matches or very close matches, even in Meroitic!

      Here is a near match between Elamite, EthioSemitic, and Meroitic...

      Meroitic: qese (kwəɕ [Rilly]) “his, her”

      Elamite (A): kaš ‘him’ (dat.) (HK 418, 450); EthioSemitic: South: Argobba: kessa “he, she”, kǝssäm “they” (Wolf Leslau)

      Also to further the "weirdness-es" of Afroasiatic. Afroasiatic does not always follow established phonetic rules. As you see above, many Afroasiatic words could be cognate to several Afroasiatic protoforms or those protoforms can be from a single protoform that diversified. Note that in Egyptian especially, many words can have connections to a number of Afroasiatic protoforms. Remember the discussion on Spanish 'tonto'? The Afroasiatic protoforms that you cited had many related forms that stemmed from a single source form.

      Also, note that Orel, Stolbova placed Berber: *wVššVn under the protoform *yaĉ-/ *wa-yaĉ- "dog" as a derivative. This is the same protoform as Militarev's *ʔays ~ *ways-. As you can see, it is sort of a "cloud" of protoforms that are seemingly very closely related.

      Also, I should have mentioned when I gave the example of metathesis...Ongota: č̣aʕawa // čaahawa SLLE, rather metathetically related to i: Omotic > North > Mao: hā́c̣e, Omotic > North > Shinasha: aassa (Fl), ʔàacá, āṣa [Bnd Om 177], Omotic > North > Chara: āṣa < *Hawc̣/č̣ - and likely i?: Omotic > North > Male: wāci (Militarev)...these are cognate words for "water" and, in some cases, by extension, "river".

      According to Orel, Stolbova, in Egyptian, Afroasiatic: */č/ > Egyptian: /s, šs/, not /š/ unless /šs/ is the same thing. Afroasiatic: */ĉ, ŝ/ > Egyptian: /š/...so unless there is some phonological rule I am missing...then Egyptian: wnš should be *wnšs or *wns if derived from Afroasiatic: *nVčuw- "wolf, jackal".

      Also Egyptian has several words for canēs that have been borrowed into other languages...Egyptian: is; wnš; whr, whr-t < whl, whl-t; bḥn < bḥl. A couple of those were borrowed into Meroitic and Nubian, whr, whr-t < whl, whl-t; bḥn < bḥl respectively.

      Delete
    8. Also to further the "weirdness-es" of Afroasiatic. Afroasiatic does not always follow established phonetic rules. As you see above, many Afroasiatic words could be cognate to several Afroasiatic protoforms or those protoforms can be from a single protoform that diversified. Note that in Egyptian especially, many words can have connections to a number of Afroasiatic protoforms.
      This illustrates how the classical genealogical tree model, based on the assumption words are transmited by common inheritance, is inadequate for representing linguistic relationships.

      Delete
  24. "I'd say it's a falisifable statement."

    We will agree to disagree.

    "I'm not sure about what you mean by "historical", but 1st millenium BCE would be OK.

    "Historical" means the period from which we have attestations of contact with Iberia it's peoples which would be in the 1st millennium BCE. "Prehistorical" would be at a time before the 1st millennium BCE before much was known of Iberia and it's inhabitants.

    If that is okay with you. Then we have a problem. The word is likely older than that.

    "I remind you this is my blog, and I think your statement could have misleaded some readers."

    That did not read like I hoped it would. I apologize for any offense taken. I was not correcting you. I was making an aside, not correction. I see it did not read that way. I apologize.

    "Ranko Matasović is generally a good linguist, but his adhesion to IE ortodoxy sometimes leads him to the wrong path. For example, his purported IE etymology of Celtic *bostā 'palm' is highly questionable, especially considering Berber *fus 'hand', East Chadic *pVs 'hand; arm'. Not to mention Basque bost '5' is a secondary development from the more widespread bortz."

    Proto-Celtic *bostā ‘palm, fist’ looks like it belongs, with this one, Latin: postis "door, post, doorpost" or this one, Greek: pastas "porch in front of a house, colonnade". I think the reference to fingers is at least for one of those.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The word is likely older than that.
    Possibly, but 1st millenium BCE would be the terminus ante quem it entered Iberia.

    That did not read like I hoped it would. I apologize for any offense taken. I was not correcting you. I was making an aside, not correction. I see it did not read that way. I apologize.
    Never mind. My remark was about the widespread vice (or should I say belief?) among historical linguists of thinking in terms of the genealogical tree model.

    Proto-Celtic *bostā ‘palm, fist’ looks like it belongs, with this one, Latin: postis "door, post, doorpost" or this one, Greek: pastas "porch in front of a house, colonnade". I think the reference to fingers is at least for one of those.
    Ha, ha, ha. It would be good as a joke, but not so as a serious proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Ha, ha, ha. It would be good as a joke, but not so as a serious proposal."

    I am glad I could make you laugh, hahaha

    "Never mind. My remark was about the widespread vice (or should I say belief?) among historical linguists of thinking in terms of the genealogical tree model."

    Understood.

    I think I may have found the words that could be related to that Celtic word.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Besides of Berber *fus 'hand', East Chadic *pVs 'hand; arm' and Basque bortz, bost '5'?

      Delete
  27. Could it be a loan from Germanic?

    Proto-Germanic: *funsti-z
    Meaning: fist
    Old English: fǖst, -e f.
    English: fist
    Old Frisian: fēst
    Old Saxon: fūst
    Middle Dutch: vuust f.
    Dutch: vuist f.
    Old High German: fūst (8.Jh.) `Faust, Höhlung der Hand, Handvoll'
    Middle High German: vūst, voust st. f., alem. vunst, pl. vünst 'faust'

    Or Slavic? (Google translated so some errors abound)

    Slavic: * pę̄st
    Word: pastern "The part of a horse's foot between the fetlock and hoof"
    Near etymology: Well . , B. n and " hand " , etc. - Russian . pastern " hand , fist ," serbsk. - tsslav . pѧst πυγμή, Bulg . dog (m ) nick pestnitsa " fist" serbohorv . pȅst - the same ( Vuk ) pȇst ( Ivekovic - Broz 2, 27 ; Reshetar , AfslPh 36, 544), Slovenians . pẹ̑st ,-ȋ " fist, hand , handful ," Czech . pěst " fist" slvts . päst , Pol. pięsc " fist" , c.- puddles. pjasc.
    Further etymology: Praslav . *pęst akin OUG fust " fist" anglos . fyst ( from * funhsti-); see Brandt, RFV 23 , 292 ; Sabler , KZ 31 , 279 et seq. ; Saussure , MSL extended 7 , 93 , Troutman , VSW 218. Lit. kumstė " fist" , etc. , Prussia . kuntis, which are also compared with those words , Endzelin (SBE 20) tends to separate from the above words and link to ltsh . kampt " missed." Slav . and germ. words repeatedly approached with PIE * penqe "five" ; see Saussure , ibid Thorpe 243. Differentiation glories . * pęst and OUG fust in Grunental ( IORYAS 18, 4 , 138) is hardly justified . Last pęst compares with Slav . * pęti, it. Srann " instep "

    Also, I answered you on the "Tartessian" talk page.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could it be a loan from Germanic? Or Slavic?
      Not at all. The phonetics of Germanic and Slavic words doesn't match the Celtic. Not only the initial labial is different but also there's an intermediate nasal.

      Also, I answered you on the "Tartessian" talk page.
      LOL. You changed the first name of Jesús Rodriguez Ramos. I agree with him as regarding Iberian e-ban- 'to set up'. And if I'm not mistaken, tile- is attested in Iberian as an anthroponym compound element.

      Delete
  28. hahahaha, let me change that. I have a bad habit of doing that. Calling everyone named Jesus, Jose, I am being serious.

    As far as the Celtic word goes, Afroasiatic can be ruled out. Just took a stab with the Slavic and Germanic. I kind of knew it was not practicable...but just threw it at you to see what you did with it, hahahaha

    I am not sure about "tile-" as anthroponymic. I know that "-tileis, tileis" is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as the Celtic word goes, Afroasiatic can be ruled out.
      The hell it can! As Einstein once said: "It's easier to disintegrate an atom than a preconceived idea."

      Delete
  29. Proto-Celtic was never that far south and Berber was never spoken beyond the southern rim of the Mediterranean.

    Also, you should find this interesting:
    http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/06/basque-origins-predate-arrival-of-farmers-in-iberian-peninsula-dna-analysis-finds/

    Found it while looking for legitimate resources concerning the Berber languages and Iberia. None have mentioned "paleo"-Berber in Iberia. Only the *crackpot* Atlantis sites that say Berber and Basque are related or that Berber and Basque are language isolates and are related which is severely contradictory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Proto-Celtic was never that far south and Berber was never spoken beyond the southern rim of the Mediterranean.
      Unless you're clairvoyant or have got a time machine, you can't say that, as we don't possess direct evidence of these prehistoric events.

      Also, you should find this interesting:
      Not at all. Sorry.

      Found it while looking for legitimate resources concerning the Berber languages and Iberia. None have mentioned "paleo"-Berber in Iberia.
      So what? There's still much to be investigated on the linguistic prehistory of the Iberian Peninsula. You'd better stay tuned to this blog. :-)

      Delete
  30. Oops, forgot about this one, sorry.

    "Unless you're clairvoyant or have got a time machine, you can't say that, as we don't possess direct evidence of these prehistoric events."

    We do not have any archaeological evidences of Celts being that far south except possibly those that were in contact with Tartessos. We know they were CeltIberian and not Proto-Celts. We know the Proto-Celts lived well north of the Mediterranean and for the most part came from the east.

    "Not at all. Sorry."

    Sorry...it was germane to this discussion though.

    "So what? There's still much to be investigated on the linguistic prehistory of the Iberian Peninsula. You'd better stay tuned to this blog. :-)"

    I look forward to further developments and discoveries. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We do not have any archaeological evidences of Celts being that far south except possibly those that were in contact with Tartessos. We know they were CeltIberian and not Proto-Celts. We know the Proto-Celts lived well north of the Mediterranean and for the most part came from the east.
      Unfortunately, conventional archaeology is *silent*, that is, it can't tell us which language spoke ancient people. By contrast, linguistic archaeology uses toponymy and lexic to dwelve into the past. Although I don't have any references at hand, there's Celtic-like toponymy in NW Africa, suggesting colonization by Celtic speakers. Also Guanche, an off-side Berber language formerly spoken in the Canary Islands, has a noticeable non-Afrasian substrate which includes an IE-looking (although not Celtic) word for 'dog'.

      On the other hand, I think the term "Proto-Celts" is also misleading, and should be replaced by "Paleo-Celts". Don't forget also proto-languages are NOT real languages ever spoken by anybody, but rather theoretical constructs more or less useful for comparative purposes.

      Delete
  31. "Although I don't have any references at hand, there's Celtic-like toponymy in NW Africa, suggesting colonization by Celtic speakers."

    Are you sure that does not come from the East Germanic Vandals?

    "Also Guanche, an off-side Berber language formerly spoken in the Canary Islands, has a noticeable non-Afrasian substrate which includes an IE-looking (although not Celtic) word for 'dog'."

    Same there, are you sure it does not come from the Vandals. Also it could be a later addition from the contact it experienced with later IE speakers who explored the islands. Also about Guanche: cuna "dog" it has strong parallels in Afroasiatic.

    Proto-Afroasiatic: *kwVHen-
    Meaning: dog
    Berber: *kun- 'dog'
    Western Chadic: *kwin-H- 'dog'
    East Chadic: *kany- 'dog'
    Mogogodo (Yaaku): kwehen 'dog'
    Omotic: *keHen- 'dog' (A. Militarev)

    Also, Guanche does not have any known vocabulary that cannot be Afroasiatic. Guanche may be like Numidian in being a sister to the modern Berber dialects rather than being a branch of them. From the looks of the transcription of Guanche...the interference from the language of the transcriber is significant. This significant interference cannot be overlooked.

    Okay, "Paleo-Celts" it is....


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure that does not come from the East Germanic Vandals?
      I don't think so.

      Same there, are you sure it does not come from the Vandals. Also it could be a later addition from the contact it experienced with later IE speakers who explored the islands.
      I think you've got the vice of lowering the chronology of prehistoric events to the historic period.

      Also about Guanche: cuna "dog" it has strong parallels in Afroasiatic.
      Please notice the Berber word quoted by Militarev is actually Guanche! Although these words are phonetic similar, we can't be sure they represent a single Wanderwort. Probably we're dealing with several ones.

      Delete
  32. "I think you've got the vice of lowering the chronology of prehistoric events to the historic period."

    We cannot push everything back to the prehistoric periods either...it becomes an absurdity and the dates began posing impossibilities.

    "Please notice the Berber word quoted by Militarev is actually Guanche! Although these words are phonetic similar, we can't be sure they represent a single Wanderwort. Probably we're dealing with several ones."

    Yes, the word is transcribed from the IE point of view of the transcriber. They transcribed it as they heard it and transcribed it as they would in their native language. The /k/ is more of what one would expect in an Afroasiatic language, but since in Italian and Spanish (hard) /c/ is more used for the /k/ sound.

    Also, I have not found any resources that mention anything about a prehistoric Celtic-like substrate in North Africa. The only ancient peoples of close to Celtic origin known to have dominated in North Africa are the Germanic Vandals. I think Germanic and Celtic are more of a sprachbund than actually related beyond common IE ancestry.

    ReplyDelete
  33. We cannot push everything back to the prehistoric periods either...it becomes an absurdity and the dates began posing impossibilities.
    But we can't just pretend prehistory didn't exist at all, as you do.

    Yes, the word is transcribed from the IE point of view of the transcriber. They transcribed it as they heard it and transcribed it as they would in their native language. The /k/ is more of what one would expect in an Afroasiatic language, but since in Italian and Spanish (hard) /c/ is more used for the /k/ sound.
    I think you missed my point entirely. I was speaking about the pretended Afrasian word. On the other hand, you're confusing spelling with pronounciation, as the phoneme /k/ is spelled as c in those languages.

    Also, I have not found any resources that mention anything about a prehistoric Celtic-like substrate in North Africa.
    Again, this doesn't mean it couldn't have existed.

    I think Germanic and Celtic are more of a sprachbund than actually related beyond common IE ancestry.
    There's nothing of the king. While Germanic has a bunch of cultural loanwords from Celtic, both branches are otherwise quite different.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "But we can't just pretend prehistory didn't exist at all, as you do."

    Octavia, you know that is hyperbole and such hyperbole, hahaha. That is not at all what I think. I believe in explanatory parsimony aka Occam's razor.

    "I think you missed my point entirely. I was speaking about the pretended Afrasian word. On the other hand, you're confusing spelling with pronounciation, as the phoneme /k/ is spelled as c in those languages."

    I don't think I did. You were saying that this wanderwort maybe a jumble of similar-sounding and similar-looking words. Also, I thought that is what I said about /k/. It is the hard "c" that gives the "k" sound in Spanish and Italian. Soft "c" has a sibilant quality.

    "There's nothing of the king. While Germanic has a bunch of cultural loanwords from Celtic, both branches are otherwise quite different."

    I said that based on so many people claiming that there is a Celto-Germanic node in IE, which I disagree with.

    Sprachbund - "is a group of languages that have become similar in some way because of geographical proximity and language contact. They may be genetically unrelated, or only distantly related. Where genetic affiliations are unclear, the sprachbund characteristics might give a false appearance of relatedness. Areal features are common features of a group of languages in a sprachbund."

    That is my thought about Celtic and Germanic. Not an intensive sprachbund like that of Afroasiatic/ Non-Akkadian Semitic/ Akkadian and Sumerian; Indo-Aryan and Dravidian (some other languages maybe involved, but those two are the most prominent); the Altaic sprachbund; the Northeast Caucasian and Northwest Caucasian sprachbund; Spanish and Basque; IE and Uralic, etc...More like the one shared by Elamite and Dravidian which are not related, but they do share SOME contact-induced features and lexicon, but not as intensively as the one's mentioned above.

    Also, the loans go beyond merely cultural...http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/ringe-handouts-09/celt-loans.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, I thought that is what I said about /k/. It is the hard "c" that gives the "k" sound in Spanish and Italian. Soft "c" has a sibilant quality.
      Properly speaking, <c> is a grapheme and /k/ a phoneme. The terms "hard c" and "soft c" might be admissible in colloquial speech, but not in formal writings.

      I said that based on so many people claiming that there is a Celto-Germanic node in IE, which I disagree with.
      I've never heard of that, but there're many people who believe in a Celto-Italic node, which in my opinion actually amounts to an Italic substrate/adstrate in Celtic. For example, Celtic *gabro- 'he-goat' is a loanword from Italic *kapro-.

      Also, the loans go beyond merely cultural...http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/ringe-handouts-09/celt-loans.pdf
      Thank you for the link. As you can see, sections 1-4 are mostly cultural items related to military, social organization and technology (iron, leather). Section 5 doesn't represent Celtic loanwords but regional lexicon shared by both branches, which in my opinion would correspond to one of more substrate layers embedded in IE lexicon.

      Delete
  35. "Properly speaking, is a grapheme and /k/ a phoneme. The terms "hard c" and "soft c" might be admissible in colloquial speech, but not in formal writings."

    Okay, Octavia, I was merely using what was in the articles about the subject. Your contention is with the authors of those articles.

    "I've never heard of that, but there're many people who believe in a Celto-Italic node, which in my opinion actually amounts to an Italic substrate/adstrate in Celtic. For example, Celtic *gabro- 'he-goat' is a loanword from Italic *kapro-."

    Germano-Celtic:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=germano+celtic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-beta

    Celto-Germanic:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=celto-germanic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-beta

    Believe it or not you get different results for each.

    "Thank you for the link. As you can see, sections 1-4 are mostly cultural items related to military, social organization and technology (iron, leather). Section 5 doesn't represent Celtic loanwords but regional lexicon shared by both branches, which in my opinion would correspond to one of more substrate layers embedded in IE lexicon."

    You are most welcome. See the links above.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The terms "Celto-Germanic" and "Germano-Celtic" are mostly used in an ethnical sense, not a linguistic one. AFAIK, the only reference to a G-C node is this article.

      My own concern is about the purported Italo-Celtic node, which is still supported by many IE-ists.

      Delete