Vida con / y libertad: sobre una coordinación arcaica y la autenticidad de "Urthubiako Alhaba"

In this note to Cid's work, we recall the existence of a certain construction in a ballad called "Urthubiako Alhaba". This NP-coordination construction (X-ekin/-gaz Y = X eta Y [X-with Y = X and Y]) is extremely rare in oral as well as in written Basque records. Taking back the documents already analyzed in 1983, together with the newly discovered Lazarraga's text (xvith century), and oral testimonies of XXth century, we show that construction to be an archaism scholars haven't noticed until recently. If this is the case, it becomes clear that nobody could have employed it consciously in order to manipulate or falsify the ballad (cf. Vinson); thus, from a linguistic point of view, this feature counts as a further proof for this ballad's authenticity and antiquity. Furthermore, we show that the extension of such construction wasn't restricted to Bizkaian and Gipuzkoan dialects, but it is clearly witnessed by varieties spoken in Araba and Navarre. The new evidence provided by "Urthubiako Alhaba" makes us think of an old general use all along the whole language's territory. In an appendix, the implications of the AND-languages / WITH-languages typology (Stassen 2000) regarding the study of this construction are dealt with, and in a more general vein, the ancient morphosyntax of the language is also looked at in the same perspective

Adabakiak /h/ -aren balio etimologikoaz

In this work, after a brief overview on the main proposals about aspiration since Michelena's Fonética histórica vasca (§I), I claim for the etymological value of word internal different /hh/ on the basis of the analysis of different phenomena and arguments: the etymological nature of h1 -h-,2) *f ' h [plus Gascon -h- ' Basque -h-], 3) Proto-Basque *h. In general, the phenomenon should be traced back to the ancient distribution of /-h-/ (and consonants which developed into /-h-/) and to the morphologization of phonological rules, and not to pure arbitrariness nor to merely prosodic reasons

Hacia un nuevo paradigma etimológico vasco: forma canónica, filología y reconstrucción

In this paper, we show the direct relation between reconstruction and etymology and between linguistic theory and philology, as well as the need to overcome atomistic approaches which are based on anecdote or which are not backed up by any theoretical model of linguistic change. At the same time, we also try to extend a new etymological paradigm which runs parallel to the reconstruction model developed from the analysis of the canonical form and evolution of Basque morphemes. This paradigm sets out to cover periods and explain aspects of the language never before dealt with or even contemplated by previous paradigms (Lakarra 1995a and later work). After a review (§1) of different definitions of the notion of "etymology" and its fundamental role in reconstruction, we provide an analysis (§2) of the etymological research centered upon Latin-Romance borrowings which was carried out by the main linguists who worked up to the 1960s on the reconstruction of the prehistory of Basque and proto-Basque: Schuchardt (§2.1), Gavel (§2.2), Martinet (§2.3) and Mitxelena (§2.4); in §2.5 we deal with the situation of etymology and reconstruction in the wake of Mitxelena's work. In §3 we analyze two alleged alternatives (§3.1 glottochronology and §3.2 massive comparison) to the traditional comparative method and evaluate their impact (§3.3) 'unconstructive, with no tangible progress' on the studies of Basque diachronic linguistics. Sections §4 and §5 constitute the core of our proposal: after an overview of some of the implications of the fact that Mitxelena did not use the canonical form (CF) in his etymological work, we contend that future etymological work must include internal reconstruction based on the analysis of the CF, associated with the diachronic holistic typology and the philology "of precision" set out by Meillet (§4.2). In (§4.3) we review the antecedents of the theory of the Basque root (mainly Uhlenbeck 1942) and the data that required the adoption of a reconstructive and etymological model which was more constrained and explanatorily more powerful than the previous one: namely, irregularities and gaps in morphophonological paradigms which could not be accounted for by the old model (§§4.4-4.5). In §4.6 we show that the view of the alleged Basque-Caucasian kinship as rather implausible and barely productive is clearly reinforced by the use of a fundamental and lasting feature such as the canonical form of morphemes. In §§4.7-4.8 we examine alleged exceptions to phonetic laws or to restrictions on the co-occurrence of certain phonemes in Basque words as formulated by Mitxelena. We provide evidence that it is absolutely necessary to make the best possible use of philology in both etymological analysis and reconstruction, by availing of advances in linguistic theory and, particularly, the analysis of the CF of morphemes. In §4.9, our use of the reconstruction of lexical families and features of the old grammar such as reduplication allows us to overturn the claim that items such as adar 'horn, antler, feeler' are borrowings, in opposition to the atomist analysis. Since these items fit into old reduplicative paradigms, their status as borrowings is rendered rather improbable, thus leading further into the reconstruction of proto-Basque grammar by ruling out false leads. In §4.10 we show that Vennemann and other comparativists sacrifice the principled explanation of specific terms such as handi "big" or ahuntz "goat" (both analyzable within an older morphology) and of real diachronic problems of the Basque language in favor of comparisons or alleged borrowings that neither shed light on their past nor further their reconstruction. In §4.11 we analyze zemai "threat, menace", not previously identified as a borrowing despite the / m / and the diphthong in final position; this word can be explained along with abagadaune "occasion", a borrowing (Mitxelena 1964) for which no specific origin has been provided in previous work. We elaborate new criteria for the identification of borrowings such as the impossibility of coexistence of strictly identical allomorphs in the same dialectal areas and we point out the importance of metathesis in etymological work. The example of andere "lady, woman" (§4.12) is used to illustrate certain problems posed (and types of help offered) by the analysis based on the CF when deciding whether a specific term is patrimonial or a borrowing. In § 4.13 we summarize a study on the evolution of dentals and conclude that azal 'skin', ahal 'can, be able', ohol 'log', ahan-tz 'forget', ihin-tz 'dew', etc., constitute cases of V1CV1C (old reduplications of roots with a dental in initial position). In §4.14 such a dental drop is shown to explain a great number of diphthongs which appear in verbal roots, a situation that leads us to reconstruct primitive roots as CVC 'and old prefixes (*da-) previously unattested in uninflected forms' in opposition to the generalized polimorphism accepted by Lafon (1943) and other authors. In §5 we contend that among the most relevant consequences of the monosyllabic root theory and etymology based on the CF of morphemes is the possibility 'a crucial one given the exiguous Basque corpus' of developing a formal etymology and elaborating a sketch of the prehistory of the Basque patrimonial lexicon. The criteria that may help to distinguish between old and new root types in a principled manner include: (a) the relationship between attested as opposed to potencial roots in each model; (b) words with and without a known etymology as opposed to the set of possible words in each root model; (c) the presence of borrowings, compounds and derived words or phonosymbolisms present in each model; (d) the phonotactic and geographic conditions that hold or fail to hold for each model. In §6 we summarize the main conclusions and in §7 we review the most relevant bibliography. In §8 we include two appendixes: §8.1 is an excursus about false illusions in literary language and some of their consequences in previous etymological work and §8.2 contains several tables with analyses of some root models according to several of the criteria and issues presented in §5. In work in progress (cf. Lakarra in progress-1) we provide a list of around 450 new etymologies, the result of our etymological work based on the analysis of the canonical form of morphemes and on the monosyllabic root theory

Hacia un nuevo paradigma etimológico vasco: forma canónica, filología y reconstrucción

In this paper, we show the direct relation between reconstruction and etymology and between linguistic theory and philology, as well as the need to overcome atomistic approaches which are based on anecdote or which are not backed up by any theoretical model of linguistic change. At the same time, we also try to extend a new etymological paradigm which runs parallel to the reconstruction model developed from the analysis of the canonical form and evolution of Basque morphemes. This paradigm sets out to cover periods and explain aspects of the language never before dealt with or even contemplated by previous paradigms (Lakarra 1995a and later work). After a review (§1) of different definitions of the notion of "etymology" and its fundamental role in reconstruction, we provide an analysis (§2) of the etymological research centered upon Latin-Romance borrowings which was carried out by the main linguists who worked up to the 1960s on the reconstruction of the prehistory of Basque and proto-Basque: Schuchardt (§2.1), Gavel (§2.2), Martinet (§2.3) and Mitxelena (§2.4); in §2.5 we deal with the situation of etymology and reconstruction in the wake of Mitxelena's work. In §3 we analyze two alleged alternatives (§3.1 glottochronology and §3.2 massive comparison) to the traditional comparative method and evaluate their impact (§3.3) 'unconstructive, with no tangible progress' on the studies of Basque diachronic linguistics. Sections §4 and §5 constitute the core of our proposal: after an overview of some of the implications of the fact that Mitxelena did not use the canonical form (CF) in his etymological work, we contend that future etymological work must include internal reconstruction based on the analysis of the CF, associated with the diachronic holistic typology and the philology "of precision" set out by Meillet (§4.2). In (§4.3) we review the antecedents of the theory of the Basque root (mainly Uhlenbeck 1942) and the data that required the adoption of a reconstructive and etymological model which was more constrained and explanatorily more powerful than the previous one: namely, irregularities and gaps in morphophonological paradigms which could not be accounted for by the old model (§§4.4-4.5). In §4.6 we show that the view of the alleged Basque-Caucasian kinship as rather implausible and barely productive is clearly reinforced by the use of a fundamental and lasting feature such as the canonical form of morphemes. In §§4.7-4.8 we examine alleged exceptions to phonetic laws or to restrictions on the co-occurrence of certain phonemes in Basque words as formulated by Mitxelena. We provide evidence that it is absolutely necessary to make the best possible use of philology in both etymological analysis and reconstruction, by availing of advances in linguistic theory and, particularly, the analysis of the CF of morphemes. In §4.9, our use of the reconstruction of lexical families and features of the old grammar such as reduplication allows us to overturn the claim that items such as adar 'horn, antler, feeler' are borrowings, in opposition to the atomist analysis. Since these items fit into old reduplicative paradigms, their status as borrowings is rendered rather improbable, thus leading further into the reconstruction of proto-Basque grammar by ruling out false leads. In §4.10 we show that Vennemann and other comparativists sacrifice the principled explanation of specific terms such as handi "big" or ahuntz "goat" (both analyzable within an older morphology) and of real diachronic problems of the Basque language in favor of comparisons or alleged borrowings that neither shed light on their past nor further their reconstruction. In §4.11 we analyze zemai "threat, menace", not previously identified as a borrowing despite the / m / and the diphthong in final position; this word can be explained along with abagadaune "occasion", a borrowing (Mitxelena 1964) for which no specific origin has been provided in previous work. We elaborate new criteria for the identification of borrowings such as the impossibility of coexistence of strictly identical allomorphs in the same dialectal areas and we point out the importance of metathesis in etymological work. The example of andere "lady, woman" (§4.12) is used to illustrate certain problems posed (and types of help offered) by the analysis based on the CF when deciding whether a specific term is patrimonial or a borrowing. In § 4.13 we summarize a study on the evolution of dentals and conclude that azal 'skin', ahal 'can, be able', ohol 'log', ahan-tz 'forget', ihin-tz 'dew', etc., constitute cases of V1CV1C (old reduplications of roots with a dental in initial position). In §4.14 such a dental drop is shown to explain a great number of diphthongs which appear in verbal roots, a situation that leads us to reconstruct primitive roots as CVC 'and old prefixes (*da-) previously unattested in uninflected forms' in opposition to the generalized polimorphism accepted by Lafon (1943) and other authors. In §5 we contend that among the most relevant consequences of the monosyllabic root theory and etymology based on the CF of morphemes is the possibility 'a crucial one given the exiguous Basque corpus' of developing a formal etymology and elaborating a sketch of the prehistory of the Basque patrimonial lexicon. The criteria that may help to distinguish between old and new root types in a principled manner include: (a) the relationship between attested as opposed to potencial roots in each model; (b) words with and without a known etymology as opposed to the set of possible words in each root model; (c) the presence of borrowings, compounds and derived words or phonosymbolisms present in each model; (d) the phonotactic and geographic conditions that hold or fail to hold for each model. In §6 we summarize the main conclusions and in §7 we review the most relevant bibliography. In §8 we include two appendixes: §8.1 is an excursus about false illusions in literary language and some of their consequences in previous etymological work and §8.2 contains several tables with analyses of some root models according to several of the criteria and issues presented in §5. In work in progress (cf. Lakarra in progress-1) we provide a list of around 450 new etymologies, the result of our etymological work based on the analysis of the canonical form of morphemes and on the monosyllabic root theory

Adabakiak /h/ -aren balio etimologikoaz

In this work, after a brief overview on the main proposals about aspiration since Michelena's Fonética histórica vasca (§I), I claim for the etymological value of word internal different /hh/ on the basis of the analysis of different phenomena and arguments: the etymological nature of h1 -h-,2) *f ' h [plus Gascon -h- ' Basque -h-], 3) Proto-Basque *h. In general, the phenomenon should be traced back to the ancient distribution of /-h-/ (and consonants which developed into /-h-/) and to the morphologization of phonological rules, and not to pure arbitrariness nor to merely prosodic reasons

Haches, diptongos y otros detalles de alguna importancia: notas sobre numerales (proto)vascos y comparación vasco-ibérica (con un apéndice sobre 'hiri' y otro sobre 'bat'-'bi')

Trabajo desarrollado dentro del proyecto Monumenta Linguae Vasconum III (FFI2008-04516) del MICIN y del GIC: IT-486-10 del GV.[ES] Analizamos las propuestas sobre numerales vasco-ibéricos de Orduña (2005) y Ferrer i Jané (2009) desde el punto de vista de la gramática histórica vasca. Además de la inexistencia de correspondencias vasco-ibéricas ni de reconstrucción alguna de la protolengua vasco-ibérica (hecho reconocido por los propios autores), las supuestas similitudes presentadas no respetan las leyes evolutivas de los sonidos vascos estudiados (aspiración y diptongos, fundamentalmente) ni su cronología. La hipótesis del préstamo resultaba ya inverosímil ante la reducida (y lejana) extensión del territorio de habla íbera como 1.ª lengua (v. de Hoz 2009) y la inexistencia de préstamos latino-románicos inferiores a "mila"; ahora, además, observamos que la mayor parte de los numerales reciben explicaciones léxicas y morfológicas intravascas satisfactorias, hecho imposible si se tratara de préstamos. En el 1.er apéndice analizamos "hiri" ('ciudad’), tal vez el supuesto préstamo ibérico más famoso, mostrando la debilidad de los fundamentos de tal creencia y la posibilidad de explicarlo (de manera conjunta con "-(h)iri" (‘cerca’), desatendido habitualmente) por reconstrucción interna. En el 2.º apéndice se reúnen una serie de notas sobre el origen de "bat" (‘1’) y "bi" (‘2’), necesariamente más especulativas que las relativas al resto de numerales. Creemos que nuestro trabajo muestra una vez más la inverosimilitud de las hipótesis vasco-ibéricas, entendidas bien como relación genética entre ambas lenguas, bien como préstamos debidos a un contacto lingüístico significativo constatable entre ellas

CVCren ertzetako alternantziak eta aitzineuskararen hitz-familien azterketarako hatsarriak: "*ban/bar-/bal"-en zirriborroa

As Mitxelena demonstrated, the left-hand side of words is the hardest to reconstruct;amongst the best well-known of these, moreover, b- is one of the most problematic initials on account of its multiple changes and losses (*b- ' b-, ø-, m-). Likewise, if the oldest phenomena in the diachronic morphology of Basque (reduplication and prefixation) are on the left, on the right-hand side several difficult alternations have long been recognised without receiving much attention. The analysis of word families is very important for the reconstruction of phonology, morphology and the etymology of Proto-Basque. We want to present an outline of one of these families (*ban/bar-/bal-), by way of an introduction to a broader and more developed study. Here we can benefit from knowing the layers of the oldest phonology and morphology and their chronology as well as working on the help of clarifying the etymologies of the some 140 words examined. Making use of a preliminar study of the *bon/bor-/bol- relatives, the notes and comments reinforce the data, explanations and conclusions in the analysis of the family studied.; Mitxelenak erakutsi bezala, hitzen ezkerraldea da kokagunerik zailena berreraikitzeko orduan; horko hotsen artean, gainera, b- ez da arazo gutxien ematen duena, dituen aldaketa eta erorketa ugariengatik (*b- ' b-, ø-, m-). Halaber, euskararen ISaren morfologia diakronikoan fenomeno zaharrenak (erreduplikazio eta aurrizkitzea) ezker izan arren, badira eskuin aldean zenbait txandakatze ilun (-n / -r / -ø; -r / -l) aspaldi antzemanak nahiz, orain arte, ondorio sakonik ez lortu eta ezta hain irregularitate garrantzitsuek merezi arta jaso ere. AEren berreraiketarako guztiz garrantzitsu da morfologia, fonologia eta etimologiaren oinarrian diren hitz-familiak ikertzen hastea eta horietarik baten (*ban/bar-/bal-en) zirriborroa aurkeztu nahi dugu, lan zabalago eta sakonagoen aurrerapen legez. Gaude, fonologia eta morfologia zaharrenaren geruzen eta kronologiaren ezagutzarako onurarik izan dezakegula bertan, zein bere aldetik tratatutako -edo oraindik horretara ere iritsi ez diren- 140 bat hitzen etimologiak argitzen edo argitzeko bidean jartzen laguntzeaz landa. *bon/bor-/bol- kidearen azterketa arinagoaz baliaturik egindako ohar eta iruzkinek sendotu egiten dituzte ikertutako familiaren analisian lortutako datu, azalpen eta ondorio nagusiak