Substrata residue, linguistic reconstruction, and linking: methodological premises, and the case history of palaeo-sardinian

Methodology of Substrata Research with Application on Palaeo-SardinianThis paper demonstrates that, within substrata' research, prior to undertaking any comparative endeavour, it is necessary to conduct a thorough distributional analysis of the morphological regularities displayed by the language under consideration, so as to determine the phonological rules governing diachronic changes, which leads to establishing the typology of the substratal language. The application of this rigorous methodology to Palaeo-Sardinian toponymic material makes it possible to recognize the primitive agglutinative typology, and thereby to precise its relation to Palaco-Basque. After having highlighted some flaws and weaknesses of prior reconstructions, the author first describes the benefits stemming from a systematic segmentation of nearly 1000 microtoponyms of Central Sardinia, which display clear morphological regularities, and restores the underlying phonological system, as well as some of the most distinctive evolutionary laws (e.g., it is argued that the structure of most reconstructed roots can be boiled down to a single syllable template CVC, as /d-u-r/, /d-o-n/; this helps to establish some phonetic laws, as /d/ > /1/ in dur > lur, don > Ioh, etc.). Finally, a detailed confrontation of Palaeo-Sardinian with reconstructed morphological and phonological systems of Palaco-Basque evince a vast array of striking correspondances which are due, most probably, to the prehistoric split of Pre-Proto-Basque into Proto-Basque and Palaco-Sardinian branches in the late Mesolithic / early Neolithic age. The paper provides a new Stammbaum model to account for this split

Rainer Schlösser (ed.), Sprachen im Abseits. Regional- und Minderheitensprachen in Europa (Jenaer Beiträge zur Romanistik, 5), München, AVM, 2015, VIII + 232 p.

Lingue di minoranz

Protovascuence y paleosardo: reconstrucción y comparación

Reconstruction of substrata residue demands a high level of competence in methodological linguistic premises. In this paper we first of all undertake a thorough discussion of the methodological flaws and weaknesses detected in the reconstruction of Palaeo–Basque. We then take issue with some misplaced conclusions drawn by the Basque linguist Joseba Lakarra when he dismisses any genealogical link between Basque and Palaeo–Sardinian. We make a powerful point for ascertaining a complete match of phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical diachronic rules between the two reconstructed languages, so as to provide compelling evidence of their common ancestral origin. Finally, we criticise the overall lack of toponymic data in Lakarra’s operational rules, which hampers a correct comparison between the two proto–systems and prevents the Basque scholar from assessing the telling support for evidence as to the common evolution of Paleo–Basque and Palaeo–Sardinian.Reconstruir substratos lingüísticos a partir de sus vestigios requiere una profunda competencia de las premisas metodológicas. En este trabajo se trata primeramente la discusión crítica de las deficiencias en la recostrucción del protovascuence para después refutar algunas conclusiones del lingüista J. Lakarra en su rechazo de cualquier conexión entre protovascuence y paleosardo. Se subraya la necesidad de reconocer la total equivalencia de las reglas de desarrollo fonológico, morfosintáctico y léxico en ambas lenguas con objeto de ofrecer una prueba incontestable de su origen común. Finalmente se objeta la total ausencia de datos toponímicos en el método de Lakarra, lo que dificulta la correcta comparación entre ambos protosistemas e impide al investigador vasco valorar el neto apoyo que dicho material ofrece para identificar la común evolución de protovascuence y paleosardo

Salvador Pons Bordería (ed.), Discourse Segmentation in Romance Languages (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series 250), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 2014, 276 p.

Book revie

Palaeo–Basque and Palaeo–Sardininan: reconstruction and comparison.

Reconstruir substratos lingüísticos a partir de sus vestigios requiere una profunda competencia de las premisas metodológicas. En este trabajo se trata primeramente la discusión crítica de las deficiencias en la recostrucción del protovascuence para después refutar algunas conclusiones del lingüista J. Lakarra en su rechazo de cualquier conexión entre protovascuence y paleosardo. Se subraya la necesidad de reconocer la total equivalencia de las reglas de desarrollo fonológico, morfosintáctico y léxico en ambas lenguas con objeto de ofrecer una prueba incontestable de su origen común. Finalmente se objeta la total ausencia de datos toponímicos en el método de Lakarra, lo que dificulta la correcta comparación entre ambos protosistemas e impide al investigador vasco valorar el neto apoyo que dicho material ofrece para identificar la común evolución de protovascuence y paleosardo.Reconstruction of substrata residue demands a high level of competence in methodological linguistic premises. In this paper we first of all undertake a thorough discussion of the methodological flaws and weaknesses detected in the reconstruction of Palaeo–Basque. We then take issue with some misplaced conclusions drawn by the Basque linguist Joseba Lakarra when he dismisses any genealogical link between Basque and Palaeo–Sardinian. We make a powerful point for ascertaining a complete match of phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical diachronic rules between the two reconstructed languages, so as to provide compelling evidence of their common ancestral origin. Finally, we criticise the overall lack of toponymic data in Lakarra’s operational rules, which hampers a correct comparison between the two proto–systems and prevents the Basque scholar from assessing the telling support for evidence as to the common evolution of Paleo–Basque and Palaeo–Sardinian.Humanidade

Adaptation to multifocal and monovision contact lens correction

Purpose. To compare visual performance with the Biofinity multifocal (MF) contact lens with monovision (MV) with the Biofinity single-vision contact lens. Methods. A crossover study of 20 presbyopic patients was conducted. Patients were randomized first into either an MF or an MV lens for 15 days for each modality, with a washout period between each lens type. Measurements included monocular and binocular high- and low-contrast logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity (VA) at distance and near visions, binocular distance contrast sensitivity function, and near stereoacuity. Results. At 15 days, patients lost fewer than two letters (half a line of VA) of binocular distance and near VA, with the MF and MV lens under high- and low-contrast conditions (P 9 0.05 for both comparisons). No statistically significant differences were seen in binocular VA at near or distance with either lens. However, the monocular distance VA improved significantly in the nondominant eye, with the MF lens by one line over the 15-day period under high-contrast (P = 0.023) and lowcontrast (P = 0.035) conditions; this effect was not seen with the MV lens. Contrast sensitivity function was within the normal limits with both lenses. The stereoacuity was significantly (P G 0.01) better with MF than with MV. Conclusions. Multifocal contact lens correction provided satisfactory levels of VA comparable with MV without compromising stereoacuity in this crossover study. The near vision significantly improved in the dominant eye, and the distance vision improved in the nondominant eye from 1 to 15 days with the MF lens, suggesting that patients adapted to the multifocality overtime, whereas this was not true for MV. (Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:228Y235)The authors declare that they do not have any proprietary or financial interest in any of the materials mentioned in this article. This study has been funded by projects PTDC/SAU-BEB/098392/2008 and PTDC/SAU-BEB/098391/2008 funded by the Portuguese Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia through the European Social Fund. This study has been partly supported by an unrestricted grant from CooperVision

Notas sobre la trayectoria universitaria y social del catedrático de historia del arte Felipe María Garín Ortiz de Taranco

En este trabajo se estudia la trayectoria universitaria y social del catedrático de Historia del Arte Felipe María Garín Ortiz de Taranco, para ver como desde la universidad se ayuda no sólo a la promoción universitaria sino también social de sus profesores. Con unos indicadores que analizan las distintas facetas, universitaria, movilidad académica, origen geográfico y social, cargos desempeñados, carrera profesional, política, distinciones¿, valoramos el perfil del profesor universitario del siglo XX y sus contribuciones a la sociedad desde su disciplina. Felipe María Garín Ortiz de Taranco this paper explores the University and social trajectory of art history professor, to view as from the University helps not only the University but also social promotion of their teachers. With indicators which discusses the different facets, University, academic mobility, geographical and social origin, positions, career, political, distinctions, value profile of the University Professor of the 20th century and their contributions to society since their discipline