`euskara' and `vasco'
Larry Trask
J. Mallea writes:
> Hi Larry,
> Basque comes from Vasco, Vasco comes from Bascunes/Barscunes,
> and Bascunes/Barscunes comes from....?
...from Indo-European.
> You make it almost appear as if Vasco and Eusk were not connected.
Yes, I neglected to mention that point. The current thinking among
Vasconists is that Basque <euskara>, <euskal> is not related at all to
the <vasco>, <Basque>, <Vascones> of the neighboring languages: the
presence of /sk/ in both is purely coincidence.
You'll recall that Sabino Arana got a little excited about those /sk/
clusters; I believe he tried to claim the Oscans and the Etruscans as
Vascos because of their names. I wonder what he would have made of my
family :-)
> By the way, I would not put too much faith in Ausci, thinking
> it might be a corruption of Eusk. There are Auskis in Nevada
> still today.
I haven't come across the surname Auski before, and I'm not sure what
its etymology might be. There are several Basque surnames built on
<hauts> `ashes, dust', such as Ausibia, Austarria, and Austegi. There
are also a few built on <hauzo> `neighborhood', such as Auzeta,
Auzibar, and Hauziartze.
The source of Auski is not immediately obvious to me, but I wouldn't
dare to connect it with the name of the Aquitanian tribe -- surnames
just don't go back that far. I might mention, though, that there is a
Roncalese word <autx>, meaning `Frenchman'; some people think this
word might continue the ancient name of the Ausci.
Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK
Xabier Ormaetxea
>J. Mallea writes:
>
>> Hi Larry,
>
>> Basque comes from Vasco, Vasco comes from Bascunes/Barscunes,
>> and Bascunes/Barscunes comes from....?
>
>...from Indo-European.
>
>> You make it almost appear as if Vasco and Eusk were not connected.
>
>Yes, I neglected to mention that point. The current thinking among
>Vasconists is that Basque <euskara>, <euskal> is not related at all to
>the <vasco>, <Basque>, <Vascones> of the neighboring languages: the
>presence of /sk/ in both is purely coincidence.
>
to think that Romans pronounced UASCON, although theyb wrote VASCON, cause
they used the V as U.
When we see AUSCI, we used to read AUSCI, but must be read AUSKI, and as
the I is plural in lathin, that can be the plural of AUSKO.
It is funny to see who "vasconists" find some coincidences as normal, and
other as crazy.
Larry: can you translate the Garibay text in wich he wrote Enuscara?, was
it a basque text or an euskera text?, Do you know if Garibay spoke
euskara?.
Perhaps is an stupidity (mine) but if you say to somebody in spanish: Habla
en euskera, it sounds like: Habla enuskera.
I don't know How much credibility have Garibay as language transcriptor,
but as historier has very very few.
Best wishes....XABIER
*******************************************************************
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for
one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected
them with another...........
*******************************************************************
EUSKOTARREN ABERRIA EUSKADI DA * EUSKADI ES LA PATRIA DE LOS VASCOS
EUSKADI C'EST LA PATRIE DES BASQUES *
*******************************************************************
Miguel Aguirre
Euskara, it is good to talk with you again. By the way have you finished your
book, it is already published?
> Yes, I neglected to mention that point. The current thinking
> among Vasconists is that Basque <euskara>, <euskal> is not related at
> all to the <vasco>, <Basque>, <Vascones> of the neighboring languages:
> the presence of /sk/ in both is purely coincidence.
Latins use to depict U and V sounds using the same letter V. It could be that
Vasco was Uasco that is even closer to Eusco, or not? anyway you are the
lingusit here. Nevertheless appears surprising that two words so close applied
to the same people are not related. In principle there are three
possibilities:
1)
Vasco is Eusco as wrongly derived by the Romans. Remeber that Italians make
today Monaco from Munchen in Bavaria, names or people or places are likely to
be badly transformed by foreigners. Is it lingusiticaly possible to go from
eusco -> ausco -> uasco to vasco?
2)
Vasco is the name given to the Eusco by the Indoeuropean invaders. This is the
theory of Tovar and you support it. Nobody in this list will object to be
called 'the proud people' -Tovar translation for basque. Nevertheless is
surprising that they give a name so close to Eusco.
3)
Vasco is the name of a Celtic tribe that just was there at the time and latter
went away. This is not so surpising. Andalucia has got that name -forever.
Thanks to the wandering Vandals that expent only a short time there.
The famous word Vascunes appears in a couple of coins found in Navarra. They
are connected with simmilar coins issued by Celtiberian towns at the time they
entered in contact with Rome. According to my understanding the reasons why
everybody assumes that that particular coin is celtiberian and not Eusco are:
a) It is very simmilar to other clearly celtiberian coins
b) The s of the end of Vascunes appears to be an Indoeuropean declension, but
remember that earlier in this century Hugo Schuchart demonstrated that the
Iberian and Basque declension were almost identical, but today it appears not
to be the case.
Anyway, who knows what was the language and culture of the people that minted
the vascunes coin!
>
> You'll recall that Sabino Arana got a little excited about those /
> sk/ clusters; I believe he tried to claim the Oscans and the Etruscans
> as Vascos because of their names. I wonder what he would have made of
> my family :-)
Not only don Sabino a lot of people e.g. Schulten got excited by the sc, it
has been associated to Ilirians, Ligurians or others. the sc has given a lot
of work to a lot of historians!
>
> > By the way, I would not put too much faith in Ausci, thinking it
> > might be a corruption of Eusk. There are Auskis in Nevada still today.
>
> I haven't come across the surname Auski before, and I'm not sure what
> its etymology might be. There are several Basque surnames built on
> <hauts> `ashes, dust', such as Ausibia, Austarria, and Austegi. There
> are also a few built on <hauzo> `neighborhood', such as Auzeta,
> Auzibar, and Hauziartze.
> The source of Auski is not immediately obvious to me, but I wouldn't
> dare to connect it with the name of the Aquitanian tribe -- surnames
> just don't go back that far. I might mention, though, that there is
> a Roncalese word <autx>, meaning `Frenchman'; some people think this
> word might continue the ancient name of the Ausci.
Here a fully agree with you, we could agree out of any reasonable doubt that
the Ausci of the Romans vere our Eusco. They are at the right place -french
bigorre- at the right time -arrival of the romans- with the right name -the
correspondence eusco ausci is almost perfect. There are too many coincidences!
I do not think that is necessary to provide supplementary support for the
equivalence
> This "euzko" business was another of Sabino Arana's inventions. He
> got the crazy idea that `euskal' must be a "corrupted" form of
> eguzkiko `
Indeed it is a crazy idea, as anybody with a little bit of common sense should
agree, basques are not eguzkiaren herria banya illargiaren
> Irigoien therefore reconstructs an ancient verb *enautsi `say'.
It appear that the conclusiuon above is just that the original meaning of
euskara is 'to speak'. This is rather logic. Indeed I remember to have read a
book by one of these 'mad' amateur linguist that was supporting just the same
thesis.
Juan Etxenike
At 12:20 16/07/96 +0000, you wrote:
>The whole text written by Larry Trask
And then your signature:
>Miguel Aguirre Martinez magu...@eoppsun.estec.esa.nl
>European Space Agency ESTEC Keplerlaan 1
>2200 AG Noordwijk The Netherlands
It was nice of you to send Larry's text again but. Why did you do it?
I'm sure you have something more to say. So don't be shy and participate.
I see your name for the first time here in Basque-l so I understand you are new
are coming back to this forum since long time ago. If I'm right: Please accept
my welcome to our cybertaberna, take a beer (this time it's me who pays) and
hope we meet with more information from you than your signature.
Agur
P.D.: I see you work at European Space Agency (uuuuuaaaaaaaaaaooooooohhhhhhhh!)
Won't you be the first basque astronaute? Just kidding. :-) Juan Etxenike
Almeida
King's College London
Miguel Aguirre
> > You make it almost appear as if Vasco and Eusk were not connected.
>
> among Vasconists is that Basque <euskara>, <euskal> is not related at
> all to the <vasco>, <Basque>, <Vascones> of the neighboring languages:
> the presence of /sk/ in both is purely coincidence.
>
> sk/ clusters; I believe he tried to claim the Oscans and the Etruscans
> as Vascos because of their names. I wonder what he would have made of
> my family :-)
>
> > might be a corruption of Eusk. There are Auskis in Nevada still today.
>
> I haven't come across the surname Auski before, and I'm not sure what
> its etymology might be. There are several Basque surnames built on
> <hauts> `ashes, dust', such as Ausibia, Austarria, and Austegi. There
> are also a few built on <hauzo> `neighborhood', such as Auzeta,
> Auzibar, and Hauziartze.
>
> The source of Auski is not immediately obvious to me, but I wouldn't
> dare to connect it with the name of the Aquitanian tribe -- surnames
> just don't go back that far. I might mention, though, that there is
> a Roncalese word <autx>, meaning `Frenchman'; some people think this
> word might continue the ancient name of the Ausci.
>
Larry Trask
Xabier writes:
> EUS or AUSC, can be changed in to UASK very easily, and is not very
> crazy to think that Romans pronounced UASCON, although theyb wrote
> VASCON, cause they used the V as U.
Yes, Latin VASCONES was pronounced [waskones].
> When we see AUSCI, we used to read AUSCI, but must be read AUSKI,
> and as the I is plural in lathin, that can be the plural of AUSKO.
And, yes, Latin AUSCI was pronounced [auski], but we don't know what
the Latin singular might have been, because it isn't recorded. It
probably wasn't AUSCO, though, because that would be very unusual in
Latin.
> It is funny to see who "vasconists" find some coincidences as normal, and
> other as crazy.
Well, we just have to try to evaluate the evidence in each case, and
decide each case on its own merits. For example, English MUCH and
Spanish MUCHO, English DAY and Spanish DIA, English HAVE and Spanish
HABER, all look like they might be the same word historically, but
we're certain they're not. They're just coincidences, as becomes
obvious when we look carefully at the evidence. On the other hand,
English FOOT and Spanish PIE certainly *are* the same word
historically, even though that's not immediately obvious, and the same
is true for English TOOTH and Spanish DIENTE, and even English FOUR
and Spanish CUATRO (this one is *really* complicated!) Likewise,
Basque MOETA and Spanish MONEDA are the same word historically, though
that's not obvious either.
> Larry: can you translate the Garibay text in wich he wrote
> Enuscara?, was it a basque text or an euskera text?, Do you know if
> Garibay spoke euskara?.
The form `enusquera' occurs twice in Garibay's book _Compendio
historial_, published in 1571. This book, of course, is written in
Spanish; hardly anybody was writing in Basque at the time. But he did
compile a famous collection of Basque proverbs, though this book was
not finally published until 1919. Garibay was a native of Arrasate,
and he was a native speaker of (Bizkaian) Basque. His family had come
from Oinate, and he himself studied at the university in Oinate. He
is one of the two 16th-century writers who tell us that Bizkaian
Basque at that time still had nasal vowels, just like modern Zuberoan.
> Perhaps is an stupidity (mine) but if you say to somebody in spanish: Habla
> en euskera, it sounds like: Habla enuskera.
Yes, true, but the context apparently makes it clear that this is not
what Garibay was saying. He explicitly compares ENUSQUERA with
ERDEERA, so he obviously means the language names.
> I don't know How much credibility have Garibay as language
> transcriptor, but as historier has very very few.
Though a native speaker, Garibay makes very few remarks about Basque.
His other remarks, though, are generally considered reliable, and this
is one reason I find Irigoyen's case so interesting.
Larry Trask
> Hi Larry we had a conversation one year ago over relations between
> Iberian and Euskara, it is good to talk with you again. By the way
> have you finished your book, it is already published?
No, it's in press. I expect it to be out in October, or November at
the latest.
> > Yes, I neglected to mention that point. The current thinking
> > among Vasconists is that Basque <euskara>, <euskal> is not related at
> > all to the <vasco>, <Basque>, <Vascones> of the neighboring languages:
> > the presence of /sk/ in both is purely coincidence.
> Latins use to depict U and V sounds using the same letter V. It
> could be that Vasco was Uasco that is even closer to Eusco, or not?
> anyway you are the lingusit here.
Yes, Latin VASCO was pronounced [wasko]. But the plural VASCONES
appears to be the same name that appears on coins as both BASCUNES and
BARSCUNES. And the form BARSCUNES is virtually impossible to relate
to EUSK-.
> Nevertheless appears surprising that two words so close applied to
> the same people are not related. In principle there are three
> possibilities:
> 1)
> Vasco is Eusco as wrongly derived by the Romans. Remeber that
> Italians make today Monaco from Munchen in Bavaria, names or people
> or places are likely to be badly transformed by foreigners. Is it
> lingusiticaly possible to go from eusco -> ausco -> uasco to vasco?
Not impossible, but not likely, because no such change is attested
elsewhere in Latin. It's generally dangerous to posit a change, or
worse a series of changes, that happened only to one word, because
that way you can derive anything from anything.
> 2)
> Vasco is the name given to the Eusco by the Indoeuropean
> invaders. This is the theory of Tovar and you support it. Nobody in
> this list will object to be called 'the proud people' -Tovar
> translation for basque. Nevertheless is surprising that they give a
> name so close to Eusco.
Perhaps, but coincidences are a lot more common in languages than most
people believe. A few months ago, somebody reported a language in New
Guinea in which the word for `father' is AITA and `mother' is AMA. He
thinks there were Basque sailors in New Guinea. I think coincidence
is far more likely -- assuming, of course, that his data are correct.
> 3)
> Vasco is the name of a Celtic tribe that just was there at the time
> and latter went away. This is not so surpising. Andalucia has got
> that name -forever. Thanks to the wandering Vandals that expent
> only a short time there.
Yes, it is not even absolutely certain that the Vascones spoke Basque.
We are sure the Aquitanians spoke Basque, and we think the Vascones
*probably* did, too, but we can't be sure. You're right that people
give names to foreigners in all sorts of surprising ways. For
example, the word `Russia' derives from `Rus', which was a Finnish
word for a Swede.
> The famous word Vascunes appears in a couple of coins found in
> Navarra. They are connected with simmilar coins issued by
> Celtiberian towns at the time they entered in contact with
> Rome. According to my understanding the reasons why everybody
> assumes that that particular coin is celtiberian and not Eusco are:
> a) It is very simmilar to other clearly celtiberian coins
> b) The s of the end of Vascunes appears to be an Indoeuropean
> declension, but remember that earlier in this century Hugo Schuchart
> demonstrated that the Iberian and Basque declension were almost
> identical, but today it appears not to be the case.
Yes, the -ES in BA(R)SCUNES and in VASCONES is certainly an
Indo-European ending. Like everybody, the Indo-Europeans, including
the Romans, had to put endings onto foreign words and names in order
to use them in their own languages. Even English, which doesn't have
many endings, does that sometimes, as when we label a person from
Spain as Spanish, where -ish is an English ending.
Schuchardt's Iberian-Basque comparisons are certainly wrong. He was
working before Gomez Moreno had figured out the phonetic values of the
Iberian signs, and he used the wrong values. Some of the texts he
used weren't even written in Iberian, but in the unrelated Celtic
language we call Celtiberian. Further, Schuchardt's reconstructions
of the Basque case-endings are wrong.
> Anyway, who knows what was the language and culture of the people
> that minted the vascunes coin!
Exactly.
> > You'll recall that Sabino Arana got a little excited about those
> > /sk/ clusters; I believe he tried to claim the Oscans and the
> Etruscans > as Vascos because of their names. I wonder what he
> would have made of > my family :-)
> Not only don Sabino a lot of people e.g. Schulten got excited by the
> sc, it has been associated to Ilirians, Ligurians or others. the sc
> has given a lot of work to a lot of historians!
Ah, I didn't know that.
> > > By the way, I would not put too much faith in Ausci, thinking it
> > > might be a corruption of Eusk. There are Auskis in Nevada still
> today.
> > I haven't come across the surname Auski before, and I'm not sure
> what > its etymology might be. There are several Basque surnames
> built on > <hauts> `ashes, dust', such as Ausibia, Austarria, and
> Austegi. There > are also a few built on <hauzo> `neighborhood',
> such as Auzeta, > Auzibar, and Hauziartze. > The source of Auski is
> not immediately obvious to me, but I wouldn't > dare to connect it
> with the name of the Aquitanian tribe -- surnames > just don't go
> back that far. I might mention, though, that there is > a Roncalese
> word <autx>, meaning `Frenchman'; some people think this > word
> might continue the ancient name of the Ausci.
> Here a fully agree with you, we could agree out of any reasonable
> doubt that the Ausci of the Romans vere our Eusco. They are at the
> right place -french bigorre- at the right time -arrival of the
> romans- with the right name -the correspondence eusco ausci is
> almost perfect. There are too many coincidences! I do not think
> that is necessary to provide supplementary support for the
> equivalence
> > This "euzko" business was another of Sabino Arana's inventions.
> He > got the crazy idea that `euskal' must be a "corrupted" form of
> > eguzkiko `
> Indeed it is a crazy idea, as anybody with a little bit of common
> sense should agree, basques are not eguzkiaren herria banya
> illargiaren
> > Irigoien therefore reconstructs an ancient verb *enautsi `say'.
> It appear that the conclusiuon above is just that the original
> meaning of euskara is 'to speak'. This is rather logic. Indeed I
> remember to have read a book by one of these 'mad' amateur linguist
> that was supporting just the same thesis.
It is very common for a people to call their language just `speech',
or something similar, and to call themselves `the speakers'.
Jose Mallea Olaetxe
On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Larry Trask wrote:
> J. Mallea writes:
>
> > Hi Larry,
>
> > Basque comes from Vasco, Vasco comes from Bascunes/Barscunes,
> > and Bascunes/Barscunes comes from....?
>
> ...from Indo-European.
>
> > You make it almost appear as if Vasco and Eusk were not connected.
>
> Yes, I neglected to mention that point. The current thinking among
> Vasconists is that Basque <euskara>, <euskal> is not related at all to
> the <vasco>, <Basque>, <Vascones> of the neighboring languages: the
> presence of /sk/ in both is purely coincidence.
>
> You'll recall that Sabino Arana got a little excited about those /sk/
> clusters; I believe he tried to claim the Oscans and the Etruscans as
> Vascos because of their names. I wonder what he would have made of my
> family :-)
>
> > By the way, I would not put too much faith in Ausci, thinking
> > it might be a corruption of Eusk. There are Auskis in Nevada
> > still today.
>
> I haven't come across the surname Auski before, and I'm not sure what
> its etymology might be. There are several Basque surnames built on
> <hauts> `ashes, dust', such as Ausibia, Austarria, and Austegi. There
> are also a few built on <hauzo> `neighborhood', such as Auzeta,
> Auzibar, and Hauziartze.
>
> The source of Auski is not immediately obvious to me, but I wouldn't
> dare to connect it with the name of the Aquitanian tribe -- surnames
> just don't go back that far. I might mention, though, that there is a
> Roncalese word <autx>, meaning `Frenchman'; some people think this
> word might continue the ancient name of the Ausci.
>
> Larry Trask
> COGS
> University of Sussex
> Brighton BN1 9QH
> UK
>
> lar...@cogs.susx.ac.uk
>
Hello again,
the connection between Basko and Eusk seems
obvious to me and the overwhelming majority of authors that
I read. I confess that I am not familiar with newer or more recent ideas.
Tovar does not say that Barscunes and Eusk are not connected.
He says it may be an I-E, Celtiberian or similar term,
if I remember correctly,
meaning--as you point out--"the haughty ones" etc.
But don't you think it is based on the name that
Basques gave themselves?
It does not take much guessing that the English "Mexican"
is rooted in the Nahualt "Mexica" (variously spelled).
Ancient writers transcribed the word
differently, Vascones being the most quoted one,
but also Ouascones/Wascones, which is closer to Eusk.
By the way, if I remember correctly, Tovar himself was not
too dogmatic about his opinion.
Those who seek to prove that Eusk and Bask are not connected
might have to present a barrage of arguments. Gero arte.
J.Mallea
Jose Mallea Olaetxe
On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Xabier Ormaetxea wrote:
> >J. Mallea writes:
> >
> >> Hi Larry,
> >
> >> Basque comes from Vasco, Vasco comes from Bascunes/Barscunes,
> >> and Bascunes/Barscunes comes from....?
> >
> >...from Indo-European.
> >
> >> You make it almost appear as if Vasco and Eusk were not connected.
> >
> >Yes, I neglected to mention that point. The current thinking among
> >Vasconists is that Basque <euskara>, <euskal> is not related at all to
> >the <vasco>, <Basque>, <Vascones> of the neighboring languages: the
> >presence of /sk/ in both is purely coincidence.
> >
> EUS or AUSC, can be changed in to UASK very easily, and is not very crazy
> to think that Romans pronounced UASCON, although theyb wrote VASCON, cause
> they used the V as U.
> When we see AUSCI, we used to read AUSCI, but must be read AUSKI, and as
> the I is plural in lathin, that can be the plural of AUSKO.
> It is funny to see who "vasconists" find some coincidences as normal, and
> other as crazy.
>
> Larry: can you translate the Garibay text in wich he wrote Enuscara?, was
> it a basque text or an euskera text?, Do you know if Garibay spoke
> euskara?.
> Perhaps is an stupidity (mine) but if you say to somebody in spanish: Habla
> en euskera, it sounds like: Habla enuskera.
> I don't know How much credibility have Garibay as language transcriptor,
> but as historier has very very few.
>
> Best wishes....XABIER
>
> *******************************************************************
> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for
> one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected
> them with another...........
> *******************************************************************
> EUSKOTARREN ABERRIA EUSKADI DA * EUSKADI ES LA PATRIA DE LOS VASCOS
> EUSKADI C'EST LA PATRIE DES BASQUES *
> *******************************************************************
>
Kaxo Xabier,
Garibay Arrasetekoa zen, euskalduna noski, eta historilari bezala
aski onartua da. Bere garaiko beste askok baino fede gehiago
merezi duena. Alare, "enuskera" horretan ez dut uste fede askorik
jarri daitekeanik.
J. Mallea
Miguel Aguirre
> Perhaps, but coincidences are a lot more common in languages than
> most people believe. A few months ago, somebody reported a language
> in New Guinea in which the word for `father' is AITA and `mother' is
> AMA. He thinks there were Basque sailors in New Guinea. I
> think coincidence is far more likely -- assuming, of course, that his
> data are correct.
My understanding is that father and mother are very simmilar in almost any
language in the world, is this so?
> Schuchardt's Iberian-Basque comparisons are certainly wrong. He
> was working before Gomez Moreno had figured out the phonetic values of
> the Iberian signs, and he used the wrong values. Some of the texts
> he used weren't even written in Iberian, but in the unrelated
> Celtic language we call Celtiberian. Further,
> Schuchardt's reconstructions of the Basque case-endings are wrong.
>
These last holidays I have been reading some books on protohistory of the
Iberian peninsula and the origins of the Indoeuropeans. While reading I have a
thought for you. It includes the complete transcription of the Botorrita text,
that everybody agrees that should be Celtic, nevertheless nobody is able to
translate it. Not only that, but it appears impossible to understand the
meaning of I single word. This for a text on a language that has left a long
writing tradition and which has plenty of specialist working on it! So it is
not so easy to translate old stones, even if we have a modern 'descendent'
available, and perhaps your fundamental thesis that Iberian and Basque are not
related because we cannot translate one using the other could not be so right
after all.
BTW during April-May we run a thread on relationship of basque with
Indoeuropean. It was started by David O'Keefe <DFOK...@AOL.COM>. I wonder if
you had access to the mail-list at the time, I keep some of the message on my
computer and I could send them to you if you think it interesting.
> > Anyway, who knows what was the language and culture of the people
> > that minted the vascunes coin!
>
> Exactly.
Anyway the assumption that the people of Navarra spoke basque at the time of
the arrival of the Romans appears the most economic and logic. This will make
the Vascones basque speakers. Not only that but also Austrigones Bardulos and
Caristios at the Basque Country, Aquitaines and Auski at south west and south
central france, and Illergetes south of the Pirinees in present Huesca.
Indoeuropeans would have been Berones in Rioja and of Course Arevacos and
familly in Old Castilla. Also Cantabri and Asturi should also have been
Indoeuropean.
>
> > Not only don Sabino a lot of people e.g. Schulten got excited by the
> > sc, it has been associated to Ilirians, Ligurians or others. the sc
> > has given a lot of work to a lot of historians!
>
> Ah, I didn't know that.
My information is taken from Caro Baroja 'Los pueblos del Norte'. He does a
recopilation of theories over the people existing at the Iberian peninsula at
the arrival of the Romans and several 'serious' german professors had plenty
of fun over the letters 'sc' that were used to try to demonstrate the
historical movements of this or that people.
And now for something not completely different:
Barkatu Haranburu Jauna bania, Holandan amabi urtez pasatuz gero, nere Euskara
galduta dago, Euskaraz ulertzen zaitut bania Inglesez erantzun dut
>Ez ote liteke haitz harri-tik heldu izan?
>Ibar --> Ibai
>Bizkar --> Bizkai
>Hamar --> (H)amai
>Harr(i) --> Hai
>Bigarren pausua, -tz atzizkiarekin batzea litzateke: Hai-tz
>Haitz horren zentzua, tamainu handiko material puxka.
>Hirugarren pausu bat, harkaitz. harr(i)-gaitz ? Harr(i)-haitz ?
This will be very logic and helpful, Arri, with the meaning stone, has been
related by some mad, and some not so mad linguistic to a older word Kar, with
the same meaning. Kar would be very old and widely distributed over Europe
e.g. the town of Karnutum in Retia (now Austria) that was translated by the
Romans as Petronel, also there are plenty of stony places like Carrara (Italy)
Carranza (EH) Carpatos (Balkans). I thing that Cairn is a word in Irish to
indicate a stone place. Have you any opinion about that?
Larry Trask
> > J. Mallea writes:
> > Yes, I neglected to mention that point. The current thinking
> among Vasconists is that Basque <euskara>, <euskal> is not related
> at all to the <vasco>, <Basque>, <Vascones> of the neighboring
> languages: the presence of /sk/ in both is purely coincidence.
> Hello again, the connection between Basko and Eusk seems obvious to
> me and the overwhelming majority of authors that I read.
Yes, the connection *seemed* obvious to lots of people for a long
time, but, because of further investigation, it is now thought by most
specialists that the names are not related and that the resemblance is
a coincidence.
> Tovar does not say that Barscunes and Eusk are not connected. He
> says it may be an I-E, Celtiberian or similar term, if I remember
> correctly, meaning--as you point out--"the haughty ones" etc. But
> don't you think it is based on the name that Basques gave
> themselves?
Yes, you're right; Tovar does not claim that there is no connection
between the two. But it is difficult to see how they could be
related. The only name we definitely know the Basques have ever given
themselves is EUSKALDUNAK. If you want to argue that the
Indo-European name is based upon a name given by the Basques to
themselves, you have to make the following claims:
(1) The Basques formerly called themselves EUSK-something-short, or
possibly AUSK-something-short.
(2) The Indo-Europeans heard this name and rendered it into their own
language as BA(R)SC-Indo-European-ending.
The only evidence for (1) is the observation that the Romans gave the
name AUSCI to one Aquitanian tribe, and this is a very slender piece
of evidence.
To make (2) work, you have to argue that the Indo-Europeans misheard
the name rather badly and turned it into something that made sense in
their language.
These things are not impossible, but they don't seem very likely,
either. After all, EUSK- and BA(R)SC- are not *that* similar, and
coincidence seems more likely to most of us than a direct borrowing.
> It does not take much guessing that the English "Mexican"
> is rooted in the Nahualt "Mexica" (variously spelled).
True, but in this case the evidence is overwhelming that the English
name comes from the Nahuatl. It is this evidence that matters, not
the obvious resemblance. Coincidences are far commoner in languages
than most people think, and relying entirely on "obvious" resemblances
will get us into trouble very quickly.
It is obvious to many English-speakers that English MUCH is the same
word as Spanish MUCHO, but this is not true -- the words are not
related, and the resemblance is a coincidence. And look at cases like
English BAD and Persian BAD `bad', or English CARRY and Basque EKARRI
`bring', or English SELL and Basque SALDU `sell', or Ancient Greek
MELI `honey' and Hawaiian MELI `honey', or Basque GOSE `hungry' and
Dargwa (a Caucasian language) GOSHI `hungry', and Galice (in North
America) GAS `get hungry', or Basque GOROTZ `dung' and Burushaski (in
the Himalayas) GHURASH `dung', or Basque UKONDO `elbow' and Lezgi (in
the Caucasus) QUNTU- `elbow'. Because we have evidence, we know for
certain that all these are pure coincidences, with the possible
exception of SELL/SALDU, which a few people think might be connected,
but most of us believe that's pretty unlikely: in all likelihood,
SALDU derives from the Basque word SARI (ancient *SALI).
Coincidences turn up all over the place. For example, when you're
speaking hika in Basque, you put -K on the verb if you're addressing a
man and -N if you're addressing a woman, as in DUK and DUN. In the
north African language Berber, they do almost the same thing: -K on
the verb for a man, -M for a woman. Coincidence again.
> Ancient writers transcribed the word differently, Vascones being the
> most quoted one, but also Ouascones/Wascones, which is closer to
> Eusk.
Actually, all three of these spellings represent exactly the same
pronunciation. Latin V had the sound of W, and Greek OU, which had
the sound of our U, was the best the Greeks could do to represent the
sound of W, which they didn't have in their language. It is not at
all clear why the B of BA(R)SCUNES should surface in Geek and Latin as
W.
> By the way, if I remember correctly, Tovar himself was not too
> dogmatic about his opinion.
Agreed, and rightly so. In historical work, it is usually wise to
refrain from being too dogmatic, because the evidence is often sparse,
and there's always the possibility that new and conflicting evidence
will turn up later.
> Those who seek to prove that Eusk and Bask are not connected might
> have to present a barrage of arguments. Gero arte.
Actually, *nobody* is seeking to prove that EUSK- and BASC- are not
connected. It is logically impossible to prove a negative. All we
can do is to evaluate the evidence and draw the best conclusion we
can, and in this case the evidence seems to us to point to
coincidence, rather than a connection between the names. If anyone
wants to argue the other way, it's up to him to make a case.
Tim Nicholson
Miguel Aguirre wrote:
Kar would be very old and widely distributed over Europe
>e.g. the town of Karnutum in Retia (now Austria) that was translated by the
>Romans as Petronel, also there are plenty of stony places like Carrara (Italy)
>Carranza (EH) Carpatos (Balkans). I thing that Cairn is a word in Irish to
>indicate a stone place. Have you any opinion about that?
In fact "cairn" is more normally used for a stone marker, especially on the
top of a mountain. You are right, however, in saying that the word for stone
in Irish (Carraig) would *appear* to come from the same root.
Tim Nicholson.
Larry Trask
Miguel Aguirre writes:
> My understanding is that father and mother are very simmilar in
> almost any language in the world, is this so?
Yes. Words like MAMA, BABA, PAPA, TATA, DADA are very commonly used
for `mother' and `father' in the world's languages. The reason is
easy to see: such noises are among the first "words" uttered by
infants, and proud parents everywhere assume their kid is trying to
say `mother' or `father'.
> These last holidays I have been reading some books on protohistory
> of the Iberian peninsula and the origins of the Indoeuropeans. While
> reading I have a thought for you. It includes the complete
> transcription of the Botorrita text, that everybody agrees that
> should be Celtic, nevertheless nobody is able to translate it. Not
> only that, but it appears impossible to understand the meaning of I
> single word. This for a text on a language that has left a long
> writing tradition and which has plenty of specialist working on it!
This is going a little too far. It is true that there are doubts and
disagreements about quite a number of the words in the Botorrita
inscription, but there is agreement about the forms and meanings of
many others, and the general sense of the text is tolerably well
understood. The language is Indo-European and apparently Celtic, but
this particular Celtic language is only sparsely recorded; it
contains a number of words not attested elsewhere, and so we can only
make plausible guesses about their meanings. (I assume we're talking
here about the first Botorrita inscription; a second one was
discovered several years ago, but I don't know what progress has been
made in deciphering it.)
> So it is not so easy to translate old stones, even if we have a
> modern 'descendent' available, and perhaps your fundamental thesis
> that Iberian and Basque are not related because we cannot translate
> one using the other could not be so right after all.
Agreed; it is *certainly* not easy to translate old stones, even when
we have advantages. In the Botorrita case, we do not have a later
descendant of the language available.
The conclusion that Iberian and Basque are not closely related is not
my thesis; it is the conclusion of the knowledgeable scholars who have
worked on the Iberian materials. Little could be done before
Gomez-Moreno figured out the phonetic values of the characters. After
that was done, both Antonio Tovar and Luis Michelena spent years
independently studying the texts. Those two were as well qualified as
anybody could be for the job, and both reached the same conclusion:
Iberian is not a close relative of Basque. Of course, it's still
possible that the two languages are *distantly* related, but that idea
is no help at all. Both men concluded that the few superficial
resemblances between Iberian and Basque were more likely the result of
centuries of contact, rather than of any genetic link. Indeed, in one
of his papers Michelena remarks acidly that the only people who are
still trying to claim that Basque and Iberian are related are people
who don't know much about the languages.
> BTW during April-May we run a thread on relationship of basque with
> Indoeuropean. It was started by David O'Keefe <DFOK...@AOL.COM>. I
> wonder if you had access to the mail-list at the time, I keep some
> of the message on my computer and I could send them to you if you
> think it interesting.
Yes, thanks; I'd be grateful. I only joined Basque-L a couple of
weeks ago, and I haven't seen any of the earlier postings on language
matters.
> Anyway the assumption that the people of Navarra spoke basque at the
> time of the arrival of the Romans appears the most economic and
> logic.
Economical, yes, but economical solutions are not always right --
sometimes the historical facts are at lot messier than we might have
expected. Aquitanian (Pre-Basque) is very sparsely but securely
attested in eastern Navarre in Roman times. In the west of Navarre,
in Gipuzkoa, and in Bizkaia it is not attested at all.
> This will make the Vascones basque speakers. Not only that
> but also Austrigones Bardulos and Caristios at the Basque Country,
> Aquitaines and Auski at south west and south central france, and
> Illergetes south of the Pirinees in present Huesca.
Most scholars consider it likely that the Vascones were
Basque-speaking, but note that there is not a single piece of hard
evidence to support this conclusion. All we can assert with
confidence is this: (1) Aquitanian is certainly attested in two texts
(just two) found in territory which the Romans apparently assigned to
the Vascones; (2) the territory of the Vascones was certainly
Basque-speaking in the medieval period; (3) the very name `Basque'
derives from the Latin name VASCONES. This is evidence, but it's
largely circumstantial evidence.
It is rather doubtful that the Autrigones, the Varduli, and the
Caristii were Basque-speaking. There is no trace of the Basque
language in their territory in Roman times. The only secure evidence
we have consists of personal names, and those names are not Basque,
but clearly Indo-European. We also have the evidence of place names:
there are many place names in the western half of the Basque Country
which are not of Basque origin and which are often certainly or
probably Indo-European, such as Deba in Gipuzkoa and Gernika in
Bizkaia. It is possible, of course, that the territory was shared by
Basques and Indo-Europeans, and that the Basques took Indo-European
names, just as later Basques took Spanish or French names. But this
is conjecture: we have no evidence at all for Basque-speakers in
Bizkaia, Gipuzkoa, Araba and western Navarre in Roman times, and the
conclusion of most scholars is that Basque probably spread to the west
and south after the collapse of Roman power in the area.
> Indoeuropeans would have been Berones in Rioja and of Course
> Arevacos and familly in Old Castilla. Also Cantabri and Asturi
> should also have been Indoeuropean.
I think this is generally agreed.
> And now for something not completely different:
> >Harr(i) --> Hai
> >Bigarren pausua, -tz atzizkiarekin batzea litzateke: Hai-tz
> >Haitz horren zentzua, tamainu handiko material puxka.
> >Hirugarren pausu bat, harkaitz. harr(i)-gaitz ? Harr(i)-haitz ?
> This will be very logic and helpful, Arri, with the meaning stone,
> has been related by some mad, and some not so mad linguistic to a
> older word Kar, with the same meaning. Kar would be very old and
> widely distributed over Europe e.g. the town of Karnutum in Retia
> (now Austria) that was translated by the Romans as Petronel, also
> there are plenty of stony places like Carrara (Italy)
Yes, an ancient stem *KAR- `stone' is widely attested in Romance and
Celtic; it has no Indo-European source, and most people consider it a
"pre-Roman" word -- a word used in western Europe before the
Indo-Europeans arrived.
Many people have suggested that Basque HARRI might continue this
ancient *KAR-. To make this work, though, you have to assume that, at
some time before the Roman period, word-initial K disappeared in
Basque. (Before the Roman period, because Latin words borrowed into
Basque have *not* lost their initial K.) Precisely this was suggested
in the 1950s by the French linguist Andre Martinet, who proposed that
some pre-Roman ancestor of Basque lost P, T, and K when they came at
the beginning of a word. This is a very interesting idea, and it's
certainly true that, when the Romans arrived in the Basque Country,
Basque had no words beginning with P, T, or K (or D, but that's a
separate issue). But at present we have no way of evaluating
Martinet's proposal.
> Carranza (EH) Carpatos (Balkans). I thing that Cairn is a word in
> Irish to indicate a stone place. Have you any opinion about that?
The word denotes a pile of stones used as a marker. I've briefly
discussed this with a colleague who is a Celtic specialist; he's a
little troubled by the idea that CAIRN (Irish CARN) derives from
*KAR-, because the phonology (pronunciation) is not quite right.
Xabier Ormaetxea
Larry Trask wrote:
>
>It is obvious to many English-speakers that English MUCH is the same
>word as Spanish MUCHO, but this is not true -- the words are not
>related, and the resemblance is a coincidence. And look at cases like
>English BAD and Persian BAD `bad', or English CARRY and Basque EKARRI
>`bring', or English SELL and Basque SALDU `sell', or Ancient Greek
>MELI `honey' and Hawaiian MELI `honey', or Basque GOSE `hungry' and
>Dargwa (a Caucasian language) GOSHI `hungry', and Galice (in North
>America) GAS `get hungry', or Basque GOROTZ `dung' and Burushaski (in
>the Himalayas) GHURASH `dung',
These examples are very very interesting..........but you are not speaking
about neighbour languages with geographical connection, and the possibility
of not related coincidences is smaller when the languages are geographicaly
touching one to another.
Of course is more possible a simply coincidence not related between euskera
and a language of Papua, than between Euskera and lathin or Euskera and
spanish or french, that is quite obvious, so although your examples are
very bright are not valid for VASC-EUSK, cause we are speaking about words
born in the same area.
Best Wishes.......Xabier
Tim Nicholson
Larry Trask wrote:
>No, I'm afraid I can't agree. The probability of a coincidence
>between two languages is exactly the same regardless of where the
>languages are spoken. There is no earthly reason why coincidences
>should become less frequent as two languages move closer together.
>
>What *does* change, of course, as languages get closer together is the
>probability that those languages will borrow words from each other.
Larry,
I'm really enjoying your highly informative postings on this list, but on
this occasion I have the impression that your nit-picking. I think Xabier's
point was essentially the same as yours, ie that if two neighbouring
languages share the same term for a concept, then it's probably worth
investigating in greater depth to see if there is a common source. In other
words, if, for example Scots Gaelic were to have the word "Chloispeigh" for
"clothes peg", and Maori were also to have the word Klisspik, it would be
more reasonable to start looking for a connection to English rather than to
Maori, regardless of the *statistical* probability of repetition from one
language to another.
While I'm on a roll, there's another subject worth mentioning in this
discussion. We tend, from a late-20th century standpoint, to think of
proximity by land as being the most important source of linguistic
confluence, forgetting that for millennia, sea routes offered much greater
contact than land routes. Ondarroa was much closer to Galway in terms of
time than it was to Madrid. I can only speak from the experience of Irish,
but I know that there are many loan words from the Scandinavian languages
("long" for a ship) and quite possibly from Spanish ("tiomana" (sp?) for a
helmsman or - now - driver). In terms of influences on Basque perhaps it
would be important to look further afield than the immediate geographical
neighbours.
Finally, a curiosity. The Oxford English Dictionary reports that the word
"bizarre" can probably be traced back to the Basque "bizarra". The logic is
as follows: At some point a "bearded man" was used in the same sense in
Basque as "hombre con bigotes" in Spanish, ie outstanding, brave, different.
"Bizarre" came into French in the sense of unusual, outstanding, and finally
into English in its present form of "weird, inexplicable, etc.".
Anyone know of any other Basque loan words in English?
Tim Nicholson.
Larry Trask
Xabier writes:
> These examples [of coincidences between languages -- LT] are very
> very interesting..........but you are not speaking about neighbour
> languages with geographical connection, and the possibility of not
> related coincidences is smaller when the languages are geographicaly
> touching one to another.
> Of course is more possible a simply coincidence not related between
> euskera and a language of Papua, than between Euskera and lathin or
> Euskera and spanish or french, that is quite obvious, so although
> your examples are very bright are not valid for VASC-EUSK, cause we
> are speaking about words born in the same area.
No, I'm afraid I can't agree. The probability of a coincidence
between two languages is exactly the same regardless of where the
languages are spoken. There is no earthly reason why coincidences
should become less frequent as two languages move closer together.
What *does* change, of course, as languages get closer together is the
probability that those languages will borrow words from each other.
If two languages are spoken many hundreds or thousands of kilometers
apart, it is not very likely that any words will pass from one
language into the other, but, if they are spoken side by side, there
is a very high probability that words will be exchanged.
So, if we find similar words in two languages, we should perhaps be
quick to suspect borrowing when the languages are close but suspicious
of the idea of borrowing when they are far apart. But those are only
opening strategies; in both cases, only by careful scrutiny of the
evidence can we hope to establish the truth. Neighboring languages
can exhibit coincidences; distant languages can share loan words.
Even between Basque and Spanish, we can easily find a few
coincidences. Here are a couple off the top of my head:
Basque MENDI, Spanish MONTE
Basque TXAKUR, Spanish CACHORRO
These words are not related; they are just coincidences.
Here's another case, more complicated this time. Old Spanish had a
word JAVOLA; this is the word that comes into modern Spanish as JAULA.
The Old Spanish word was borrowed into Basque as TXABOLA. Now this
word looks very much as though it contains ETXE and OLA, but it
doesn't -- the resemblance is purely coincidental. Nevertheless, some
Basques were so struck by the resemblance that they thought TXABOLA
must be from ETXE plus OLA, and so they changed TXABOLA into ETXAOLA
or ETXOLA, to make it look more regular. At least, that's what we
*think* happened, but, without any records to consult, we can't be
100% sure. But, even if we turn out to be wrong about this last bit,
the fact remains that TXABOLA looks remarkably like a native Basque
word -- but it isn't.
Incidentally, Old Spanish JAVOLA was inherited from Latin *CAVEOLA
`little enclosure, cage', and the same word was inherited in Occitan
as CAIOLE; this word too was borrowed into Basque as KAIOLA.
Moreover, the same Latin word was inherited in Norman French as
JAIOLE, and this was borrowed into English as JAIL. It's quite
intriguing to reflect that Basque TXABOLA, Basque KAIOLA, and English
JAIL all started life as the same word, Latin *CAVEOLA.
Bill Haddican -DSI Mosaic
Hello all,
I had two questions/comments about this discussion:
First of all, Jose wrote:
> It does not take much guessing that the English "Mexican"
> is rooted in the Nahualt "Mexica" (variously spelled).
That's true, but English-speakers don't refer to the Mexika (or Tenoxkas)
themselves as Mexika, but rather as Aztecs which the Mexika never used
to refer to themselves.
Then Larry wrote:
> If you want to argue that the
> Indo-European name is based upon **a name given by the Basques to
> themselves,** you have to make the following claims:
In fact, isn't it pretty uncommon for one ethnic group to call a second
group by a name that second group uses for itself? For instance--to
continue with the Meso-american example--almost none of the Spanish names
for Uto-aztecan groups in Mexico...Yakis, Coras, Papagos, Aztecas,
Tarahumaras...derive from names that those groups use for themselves.
Nor do Eskimos call themselves anything like 'Eskimos', the creek 'creek'
etc. The point is that if 'vasco' *did* derive from a name Basques used
for themselves, wouldn't it be a bit of a linguistic anomally?
One other question, Larry, since you're being so informative on hist.
linguistics, do you have any idea about how the word 'SCAPEGOAT'
developed. Just wondering.
-Bill
Larry Trask
Tim Nicholson writes:
> Larry Trask wrote:
> >No, I'm afraid I can't agree. The probability of a coincidence
> >between two languages is exactly the same regardless of where the
> >languages are spoken. There is no earthly reason why coincidences
> >should become less frequent as two languages move closer together.
> >What *does* change, of course, as languages get closer together is
> the probability that those languages will borrow words from each
> other.
> Larry,
> I'm really enjoying your highly informative postings on this list,
> but on this occasion I have the impression that your nit-picking. I
> think Xabier's point was essentially the same as yours, ie that if
> two neighbouring languages share the same term for a concept, then
> it's probably worth investigating in greater depth to see if there
> is a common source. In other words, if, for example Scots Gaelic
> were to have the word "Chloispeigh" for "clothes peg", and Maori
> were also to have the word Klisspik, it would be more reasonable to
> start looking for a connection to English rather than to Maori,
> regardless of the *statistical* probability of repetition from one
> language to another.
Yes, it is possible that this is what Xabier meant, in which case we
are in agreement.
> While I'm on a roll, there's another subject worth mentioning in
> this discussion. We tend, from a late-20th century standpoint, to
> think of proximity by land as being the most important source of
> linguistic confluence, forgetting that for millennia, sea routes
> offered much greater contact than land routes. Ondarroa was much
> closer to Galway in terms of time than it was to Madrid. I can only
> speak from the experience of Irish, but I know that there are many
> loan words from the Scandinavian languages ("long" for a ship) and
> quite possibly from Spanish ("tiomana" (sp?) for a helmsman or - now
> - driver). In terms of influences on Basque perhaps it would be
> important to look further afield than the immediate geographical
> neighbours.
Yes, you are absolutely right to point this out, and it's an important
point.
> Finally, a curiosity. The Oxford English Dictionary reports that the
> word "bizarre" can probably be traced back to the Basque
> "bizarra". The logic is as follows: At some point a "bearded man"
> was used in the same sense in Basque as "hombre con bigotes" in
> Spanish, ie outstanding, brave, different. "Bizarre" came into
> French in the sense of unusual, outstanding, and finally into
> English in its present form of "weird, inexplicable, etc.".
This origin for `bizarre' has long been popular, but we don't know
that it's correct, and many scholars reject it completely. English
`bizarre' is borrowed from French `bizarre', which has roughly the
same meaning as English. Italian has `bizzarro', which means
`capricious'. Spanish has `bizarro', which means `gallant, brave,
dashing, splendid'. The proposal is that Basque `bizar' `beard' is
the source of all these. To make this work, you have to suppose the
following things. (1) The Spaniards regarded a beard as the most
obvious outward mark of a man who was manly. (2) They decided to take
a word for `beard' and use it to mean `manly'. (3) For some reason,
instead of using their own word for `beard', they borrowed the Basque
one, even though Spanish has borrowed very, very few words from
Basque. (4) The meaning of the Spanish word changed from `manly' to
`brave, gallant', and so on. (5) The Italians borrowed the Spanish
word and changed the meaning to `capricious' -- perhaps in the belief
that gallant, dashing soldiers tend to do unexpected things. (6) The
French borrowed the Italian word and changed the meaning again, to
`very strange'.
Now all this is *possible*, of course, but it's too much of a
contrived scenario for some scholars to swallow. I don't have the
relevant reference books on my shelf, and our library is closed today,
but I believe there are some further difficulties with this story. A
crucial datum would be the dates of attestation. I have a dim
recollection that the word is attested in Italian earlier than
anywhere else; if so, the Basque-origin scenario is in deep trouble.
If I think of it, I'll look at Corominas's etymological dictionary of
Spanish next time I'm in the library: Corominas is usually pretty good
on issues like this one.
Whatever the truth, I'm afraid you can't believe *everything* you read
in the OED -- though it's usually very reliable.
> Anyone know of any other Basque loan words in English?
There are very few. The clearest case is an English word which is now
obsolete: `bilbo', meaning a sword of outstanding quality, especially
one manufactured in the Basque Country (the word occurs in
Shakespeare, and of course it derives from the name of Bilbao). In
Shakespeare's day, Bizkaia and England were important trading
partners; they signed several commercial treaties, and the
high-quality Basque iron and steel manufactures were much prized in
England.
Another possibility is English `chaparral'. This derives directly
from Spanish `chaparra', but the Spanish word itself is widely thought
to be borrowed from Basque `txapar' (definite form `txaparra')
`underbrush, bush(es)'. Oddly, though, the English meaning matches
the Basque meaning more closely than the Spanish one.
Other cases are few and doubtful. There is, of course, `jai alai',
but this is a very strange case. The Basques call their national game
`pilota', which is, of course, a loan from Romance. The 19th-century
Basque Romantic writer Serafin Baroja thought there ought to be a
native name for the Basque national game, and he proposed `jai alai'
-- literally, `merry festival'. This name has never caught on in
Basque, where the game continues to be called `pilota' -- though every
fronton seems to have a `Bar Jai Alai' somewhere nearby. Somehow,
though -- and don't ask me to explain how -- the name `jai alai' found
its way into American Spanish and from there into American English.
The game is now widely played in the USA, and it's invariably called
`jai alai' there. So, somehow we have managed to borrow a Basque word
which the Basques themselves have never used.
This is an example of the funny things that can happen when people try
to borrow words from other languages. Apropos of nothing much, here's
another genuine example. During the American occupation of the
Philippines, at least one Filipino father named his son ABABI'S
(that's the Spanish accent there), after the patron saint of the USA.
But no such saint exists. So what happened? Well, in those days the
Filipinos were largely Spanish-speaking, and the father had noticed
that American soldiers, in moments of stress, tended to call upon
their saint by exclaiming SAN ABABI'S -- or something like that.
This is true, by the way -- I couldn't make up a story like that.
By the way, it strikes me that there appears to be one English word
which has been borrowed into Basque but not into Spanish. In Bizkaian
Basque, at least, the everyday word for `cement' is `porlan'. This
derives from English `Portland', since Portland cement is the most
famous kind of cement and since the name `Portland' is written on
cement bags. As far as I know, `porlan' is used exclusively in Basque
and not at all in Spanish. Anybody know anything about this?
Larry Trask
Bill Haddicon writes:
> In fact, isn't it pretty uncommon for one ethnic group to call a
> second group by a name that second group uses for itself? For
> instance--to continue with the Meso-american example--almost none of
> the Spanish names for Uto-aztecan groups in Mexico...Yakis, Coras,
> Papagos, Aztecas, Tarahumaras...derive from names that those groups
> use for themselves. Nor do Eskimos call themselves anything like
> 'Eskimos', the creek 'creek' etc. The point is that if 'vasco'
> *did* derive from a name Basques used for themselves, wouldn't it be
> a bit of a linguistic anomally?
I hesitate to say that it's uncommon to do so, but it is certainly
common to call another people by a name they never use themselves. In
English, we use names for the Basques, the Dutch, the Germans, the
Finns, the Lapps, the Greeks, the Albanians, the Welsh, and the
Gypsies (at least) which they never use themselves, not to mention the
Picts, the Minoans, and the Hittites.
> One other question, Larry, since you're being so informative on hist.
> linguistics, do you have any idea about how the word 'SCAPEGOAT'
> developed. Just wondering.
This word has a remarkably interesting origin. According to the Old
Testament (Leviticus 16), the ancient Israelites observed Yom Kippur
(the Day of Atonement) with a curious custom: they symbolically loaded
all of their sins onto the back of a goat, which was then driven into
the wilderness to die. The idea was, I suppose, that the goat was
carrying the responsibility for all their sins, thus relieving the
Israelites of any further responsibility for them. The Hebrew word
applied to this goat was AZAZEL. Now, when William Tyndale was
preparing his famous English translation of the Bible in the 16th
century, he misinterpreted the Hebrew word as meaning `goat that
escapes' (which it doesn't). Looking for an English translation, he
therefore hit upon SCAPEGOAT (i.e., ESCAPE-GOAT), and he used this in
his translation. The word caught on in English, but chiefly in the
metaphorical sense of `person obliged to take responsibility for
someone's else's crimes'.
Juan Etxenike
At 19:12 19/07/96 +0200, you wrote:
>
>Finally, a curiosity. The Oxford English Dictionary reports that the word
>"bizarre" can probably be traced back to the Basque "bizarra". The logic is
>as follows: At some point a "bearded man" was used in the same sense in
>Basque as "hombre con bigotes" in Spanish, ie outstanding, brave, different.
>"Bizarre" came into French in the sense of unusual, outstanding, and finally
>into English in its present form of "weird, inexplicable, etc.".
>
>Anyone know of any other Basque loan words in English?
>
>Tim Nicholson.
>
Hi Tim,
I heard that the word embarass could be cut in emb-arass where arass could
be arazo("problem" in basque) but I'm not sure whether if it's true. The
castillian word for left "Izquierda" could also come from Ezkerra (this
terms are also found in Galician and in Catalan)
Slan
.
Larry Trask
Juan Etxenike writes:
> I heard that the word embarass could be cut in emb-arass where arass
> could be arazo("problem" in basque) but I'm not sure whether if it's
> true. The castillian word for left "Izquierda" could also come from
> Ezkerra (this terms are also found in Galician and in Catalan)
`Embarrass', no; I'm afraid not. This word derives ultimately from
Italian IMBARRARE `put behind bars'; this acquired an extended form
IMBARRAZZARE `put a bar into or across', and hence `obstruct'. This
word was borrowed into Spanish as EMBARAZAR `obstruct, hinder' and
into French as EMBARRASSER `hinder, hamper'. Either the Spanish word
or the French word (we're not sure which) was then borrowed into
English as EMBARRASS `hinder, hamper, obstruct', which is the original
meaning of the English word. But utterances like `He was embarrassed
by his lack of money' came to be understood differently after a while:
originally, this simply meant `He was hampered by his lack of money',
but it came to be understood as meaning `He was socially uncomfortable
because of his lack of money', and today the usual meaning of BE
EMBARRASSED in English is precisely this: feeling somewhat humiliated
in public. As a result, EMBARRASS is now used as a transitive verb
meaning `make someone feel humiliated'.
But IZQUIERDO, yes: everybody accepts that this Spanish word is
borrowed from Basque EZKER. The suffix -DO is archaic in Basque
today, but it occurs in several old words with a pejorative sense, and
it would not be surprising if Basque once had a word *EZKERDO for the
left hand, since the left hand is almost universally regarded with
deep suspicion in Europe.
Xabier Ormaetxea
Other Basque word, in many languages is Silouete, Silueta etc.... that
comes from a Basque surname, the origin was a French minister with this
surname,( equivalent to the southern surname Zulueta).
Xabier Ormaetxea
I wrote
>> Of course is more possible a simply coincidence not related between
>> euskera and a language of Papua, than between Euskera and lathin or
>> Euskera and spanish or french, that is quite obvious, so although
>> your examples are very bright are not valid for VASC-EUSK, cause we
>> are speaking about words born in the same area.
Larry answered
>
>No, I'm afraid I can't agree. The probability of a coincidence
>between two languages is exactly the same regardless of where the
>languages are spoken. There is no earthly reason why coincidences
>should become less frequent as two languages move closer together.
>
Don't be afraid, but as you follow the " mantenella y no enmendalla" I am
going to put a simple example.
If we find 10 words very simmilar in Euskera, and in a language of Papua, I
think you must agree that the possiblity of simple coincidence is very high
(well, always is possible the theory of the basque missioner or that theory
about the "San lesmes" boat losed in the Pacific).
But the possibility of relationed words is higher if the other language is
closer or has (had) any direct or indirect contact with euskera.
Because of that Euskera has a lot of lathin, french and spanish words, and
of course Indoeuropean, Celtic etc., of course there are coincidences, but
I am speaking about probabilities.
The examples you mentioned are from distant languages.
The example you mention in this note is more correct.
Other matter.
The theory about the celtic root of the sufix IKA, is only one of three
theories, if I remamber well they are
1.- The ICUS sufix of the lathin,
2.- The celtic word
3.- a basque word with the meaning of Slope
I have read a lot about these theories, but I have never read a good
article, about the toponims finished in IKA, but since the geographic point
of view.
For instance: Barrika was IBARRIKA, if we translate it as Slope riverside,
we can see that is really a slope riverside.
I don't know the meaning of IKA, but I think most studies about Toponims
are made without visit the place.
Best wishes.....XABIER
Juan Etxenike
Hi everybody I received this message from Jorge Ochoa-garay's server:
I thought the best was to send it to the list so maybe Jorge couls know
whether there's something wrong
>Return-Path: <3COM_G...@pc.niaid.nih.gov>
>Date: Mon, 22 Jul 96 09:04:30 EST
>From: 3Com/Unix Mail Gateway <3COM_G...@pc.niaid.nih.gov>
>To: j.ech...@kcl.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: `euskara' and `vasco'
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>Error in this mail message. (16)
>Mail could not be delivered to jorge ochoa-garay:twin:niaid
>
> ----- Unsent message follows -----
>
>At 19:12 19/07/96 +0200, you wrote:
>
>>
>>Finally, a curiosity. The Oxford English Dictionary reports that the word
>>"bizarre" can probably be traced back to the Basque "bizarra". The logic is
>>as follows: At some point a "bearded man" was used in the same sense in
>>Basque as "hombre con bigotes" in Spanish, ie outstanding, brave, different.
>>"Bizarre" came into French in the sense of unusual, outstanding, and finally
>>into English in its present form of "weird, inexplicable, etc.".
>>
>>Anyone know of any other Basque loan words in English?
>>
>>Tim Nicholson.
>>
>Hi Tim,
>I heard that the word embarass could be cut in emb-arass where arass could
>be arazo("problem" in basque) but I'm not sure whether if it's true. The
>castillian word for left "Izquierda" could also come from Ezkerra (this
>terms are also found in Galician and in Catalan)
Miguel Aguirre
few statements that diverse further clarification.
> > > J. Mallea writes:
>
> > > Yes, I neglected to mention that point. The current thinking
> > among Vasconists is that Basque <euskara>, <euskal> is not related
> > at all to the <vasco>, <Basque>, <Vascones> of the neighboring
> > languages: the presence of /sk/ in both is purely coincidence.
>
> > Hello again, the connection between Basko and Eusk seems obvious to
> > me and the overwhelming majority of authors that I read.
>
> Yes, the connection *seemed* obvious to lots of people for a long
> time, but, because of further investigation, it is now thought by
> most specialists that the names are not related and that the
> resemblance is a coincidence.
>
> Actually, *nobody* is seeking to prove that EUSK- and BASC- are
> not connected. It is logically impossible to prove a negative. All
> we can do is to evaluate the evidence and draw the best conclusion we
> can, and in this case the evidence seems to us to point to
> coincidence, rather than a connection between the names. If anyone
> wants to argue the other way, it's up to him to make a case.
>
>
What do we mean by the statement "Austrigoni were Indoeuropean" or "The
consesus is that Vascones were not Euskaldunes"?. Let us assume that we have a
people let us call it 'EU' some other collective arrives there, we could give
them the name IE.
First it is necessary to investigate what will hapen when people enter in
contact
1)
If the newcomer are much more numerous they can 'distroy by dilution' the
aboriginal population. I would say that this will only happen in case of
contacts of people with very different cultural level and demographic
potential. A good example is the destiny of USA indians.
2)
Newcomers can take over as ruling class and can also impose their culture. The
aboriginal cultura could be wipped out or it can surive to different levels.
Spanish conquerors of Arizona did so with Pueble indians. My understanding is
that many Pueble Indians have today Spanish names.
3)
Newcomers can pass many cultural aspects e.g. religion language without
'taking over'
4)
Newcomers can be integrated leaving very few cultural traits on the
aborigines. This can be done even in the case of victory by the newcomers.
Chinese were many times conquered by Mongol tribes but the invaders were
allways 'cultural absorved' by the theoretically vanquised.
The outcome will depend of the relative strength (not only militar) and will
be very difficult to derive general rules.
This long repetition of platitude is necessary What I have said above about
contact between people is no more that a list of platitude but is necessary to
remember quite often we draw very clear boundaries -this people is
Indoeuropena, that people is not- that we forget often that the contact
between IE (white) and EU (black) should have produced a very reach variety
of shades of grey.
The second important point is that we cannot prove that Barduli, or Vascones,
were basque speakers but we could try to demonstrate that is the theory more
coherent with the available data (perhaps not linguistic but clearly
historic).
1)
Caro Baroja considered Austrigones, Barduli and Caristii as Euskaldunak (see
Los pueblos del norte). I read that book long ago but one of the reasons that
I remember was that the frontiers between those tribes coincide with the
frontiers between Bizkaiera, Ipuzkoera and Naparrera. Also he gives many other
reasons supporting those three tribes were Euskaldunak
2)
The relationship between Vasque and Eusko is strong. In can be a coincidence
but it is a 'significative coincidence'. If the aborigines called theyselves
with a name (Eusco) that sound simmilar to something that had a meaning for
the newcomers (Uasco, the famous 'the proud ones' of Tovar you mentioned), it
would be logic for the newcomers to called the aborigines with that term with
made sense to them (Uasco). This is impossible to refute and impossible to
verify but it is plausible. Remember the Italians today call Monaco to Munchen
in Germany and the Spanish called 'Zaragoza de Sicilia' the Italian town of
Siracusa.
3)
Vascones were located by the romans at areas that are occupied by basques now.
In those areas people have spoken euskara in the recent (historical) past and
basque toponimi is very abundant and the people around (French Spanish) they
have also called vascones to people that call theyselves eusko
4)
Ecology and up to a point archeology supports the idea of the same culture
north and south of the Pirinees.
5)
If vasconi, austrigoni, barduli and caristii were not eusko, what were they?
where went them? and when those territories were euskaldunized? The only
possible moment would have been at the end of the Roman Empire, but there is
not any record for that. There is some texts refering to the bagauda and some
other bandints, some text of Saint Gregory of Tours telling that the basques
were expanding and of course the wars of Visigotic with the Vasconi, but all
that are expansions 'from the basque country' not 'to the basque country'.
Indeed the only point against is that the names of the four tribes is
Indoeuropean and that they did not leave any inscription in Aquitane (i.e.
proto basque). My understanding is that they did not leave almost any
inscription in any language and as we have said already most of the times
people is named by foreigners with foreign names. It is not the case that the
area covered by the Euskaldunak was leaving in perfect isolation. It is very
clear that Indoeuropeans had been going up and down there for quite a while
at the arrival of the Romans. They left many things cultural and material and
they also left plenty of names (including basque) but still it is much more
logic to identify the people leaving in the territory of EH as the ancestors
of the people leaving there today
Larry Trask
Miguel Aguirre writes:
> What do we mean by the statement "Austrigoni were Indoeuropean" or
> "The consesus is that Vascones were not Euskaldunes"?. Let us assume
> that we have a people let us call it 'EU' some other collective
> arrives there, we could give them the name IE.
> First it is necessary to investigate what will hapen when people
> enter in contact
> 1) If the newcomer are much more numerous they can 'distroy by
> dilution' the aboriginal population. I would say that this will only
> happen in case of contacts of people with very different cultural
> level and demographic potential. A good example is the destiny of
> USA indians.
Agreed.
> 2) Newcomers can take over as ruling class and can also impose their
> culture. The aboriginal cultura could be wipped out or it can surive
> to different levels. Spanish conquerors of Arizona did so with
> Pueble indians. My understanding is that many Pueble Indians have
> today Spanish names.
Agreed.
> 3) Newcomers can pass many cultural aspects e.g. religion language
> without 'taking over'
Agreed.
> 4) Newcomers can be integrated leaving very few cultural traits on
> the aborigines. This can be done even in the case of victory by the
> newcomers. Chinese were many times conquered by Mongol tribes but
> the invaders were allways 'cultural absorved' by the theoretically
> vanquised. The outcome will depend of the relative strength (not
> only militar) and will be very difficult to derive general rules.
> This long repetition of platitude is necessary What I have said
> above about contact between people is no more that a list of
> platitude but is necessary to remember quite often we draw very
> clear boundaries -this people is Indoeuropena, that people is not-
> that we forget often that the contact between IE (white) and EU
> (black) should have produced a very reach variety of shades of grey.
Agreed.
> The second important point is that we cannot prove that Barduli, or
> Vascones, were basque speakers but we could try to demonstrate that
> is the theory more coherent with the available data (perhaps not
> linguistic but clearly historic).
Agreed, but this is very difficult.
> 1) Caro Baroja considered Austrigones, Barduli and Caristii as
> Euskaldunak (see Los pueblos del norte). I read that book long ago
> but one of the reasons that I remember was that the frontiers
> between those tribes coincide with the frontiers between Bizkaiera,
> Ipuzkoera and Naparrera. Also he gives many other reasons supporting
> those three tribes were Euskaldunak
Yes, this is Caro Baroja's position, but I believe few people agree
with him today. His case about the match between the ancient tribal
boundaries and the modern linguistic boundaries is weak, for several
reasons.
First, our information about ancient tribal boundaries is very hazy,
and I don't think we can confidently draw nice red lines on a map and
say "These were the ancient boundaries between the Autrigoni, the
Caristii, the Varduli, and the Vascones." The lines that are
traditionally drawn on such maps are no better than educated guesses,
and mot all maps of the Basque Country in the Roman period put those
boundaries in the same places.
Second, the modern dialect boundaries, which also appear on lots of
maps, are not objective realities: they are merely arbitrary decisions
by particular people. The conventional boundaries are largely based
on Bonaparte's decisions, but he might have made different decisions.
For example, there is no real dividing line between Bizkaian and
Gipuzkoan. If you travel from Lodio to Donostia, you will find that
DABE gives way to DUTE, that ZALDIYE gives way to ZALDIA, that the
English-type J in words like JAUN gives way to the Spanish-type J,
that EMON gives way to EMAN, that BERBA gives way to ITZ, that
GUSTATZEN JAT(A) gives way to GUSTATZEN ZAIT, that ARTUTZEN DOT gives
way to ARTZEN DET, that NESKIA (or NESKEA) gives way to NESKA, that
ITXI gives way to LAGA, which in turn gives way to UTZI, and so on,
and so on. And the boundaries between these forms do not fall in the
same place, or even close. By the time you get to Durango, you will
already be hearing the Spanish-type J (at least from people under 50
or so); by the time you reach Azpeitia, you'll still be hearing
something similar to ZALDIYE. So there is no real boundary between
Bizkaian and Gipuzkoan, or between any other two dialects. There is
just a single large continuum, and the lines we choose to draw on maps
are convenient but arbitrary.
Third, the differences among the modern dialects, prominent as they
appear, are in fact surprisingly small. Further, these differences
were even smaller 400 years ago: the Bizkaian of that time, for
example, was remarkably similar to French Basque. Therefore, many
specialists believe that there was a Basque koine spoken throughout
the country not so many centuries ago, and that the modern dialect
differences are of very recent origin, and do not reflect ancient
divisions among the Basques.
> 2) The relationship between Vasque and Eusko is strong. In can be a
> coincidence but it is a 'significative coincidence'. If the
> aborigines called theyselves with a name (Eusco) that sound simmilar
> to something that had a meaning for the newcomers (Uasco, the famous
> 'the proud ones' of Tovar you mentioned), it would be logic for the
> newcomers to called the aborigines with that term with made sense to
> them (Uasco). This is impossible to refute and impossible to verify
> but it is plausible. Remember the Italians today call Monaco to
> Munchen in Germany and the Spanish called 'Zaragoza de Sicilia' the
> Italian town of Siracusa.
Yes, I agree that this is possible. I just don't agree that there's
much evidence in support of such an identification.
> 3) Vascones were located by the romans at areas that are occupied by
> basques now. In those areas people have spoken euskara in the
> recent (historical) past and basque toponimi is very abundant and
> the people around (French Spanish) they have also called vascones to
> people that call theyselves eusko
Vascones, yes, but the Vascones seem to have occupied only the modern
territory of Navarra (more or less), plus perhaps a bit of eastern
Gipuzkoa. And the evidence *does* suggest that the Vascones spoke
Basque, or that at least some of them did. Suggest, but not prove.
> 4) Ecology and up to a point archeology supports the idea of the
> same culture north and south of the Pirinees.
Yes, insofar as I'm familiar with the archeological data, there does
appear to be little evidence for any major changes of population in
the Basque Country, apart from the arrival of the Celts in the first
millennium BC.
> 5) If vasconi, austrigoni, barduli and caristii were not eusko, what
> were they?
Indo-Europeans, apparently.
> where went them? and when those territories were euskaldunized?
They didn't go anywhere. They just abandoned their earlier languages
in favor of Basque. This is what usually happens when a prestigious
new language is introduced into a region.
> The only possible moment would have been at the end of the Roman
> Empire, but there is not any record for that.
Agreed; there is little or no purely historical evidence for a
westward spread of the Basque language around the time of the collapse
of Roman power. This hypothesis is favored because it seems to
provide the most economical account of the data, particularly the
total absence of any linguistic evidence for Basque in the west in
Roman times, together with the substantial evidence for the presence
of Indo-European speech there.
> There is some texts refering to the bagauda and some other bandints,
> some text of Saint Gregory of Tours telling that the basques were
> expanding and of course the wars of Visigotic with the Vasconi, but
> all that are expansions 'from the basque country' not 'to the basque
> country'.
Yes, but an argument from silence can never be decisive.
> Indeed the only point against is that the names of the four tribes
> is Indoeuropean and that they did not leave any inscription in
> Aquitane (i.e. proto basque). My understanding is that they did not
> leave almost any inscription in any language and as we have said
> already most of the times people is named by foreigners with foreign
> names. It is not the case that the area covered by the Euskaldunak
> was leaving in perfect isolation. It is very clear that
> Indoeuropeans had been going up and down there for quite a while at
> the arrival of the Romans. They left many things cultural and
> material and they also left plenty of names (including basque) but
> still it is much more logic to identify the people leaving in the
> territory of EH as the ancestors of the people leaving there today
These are fair points, but you are overlooking the one fact that seems
to most of us to be absolutely crucial: we have lots of personal names
and divine names recorded in the east, and those names are Basque. We
also have lots of names recorded in the west, and those names are
Indo-European. There is not one single Basque name recorded in the
west in Roman times. True, this is not proof, but it's evidence, and
it strongly suggests an absence of Basque-speakers in the west in
Roman times.
In any case, we are now off on a tangent. Whether there were
Basque-speakers in the west is a completely separate question from
whether Latin VASC- represents the same name as Basque EUSK-. At the
moment, the best available answer seems to be `no' in both cases. But
of course we can't be certain.
Jose A. del Moral
Mr. Trask asked:
>By the way, it strikes me that there appears to be one English word
>which has been borrowed into Basque but not into Spanish. In Bizkaian
>Basque, at least, the everyday word for `cement' is `porlan'. This
>derives from English `Portland', since Portland cement is the most
>famous kind of cement and since the name `Portland' is written on
>cement bags. As far as I know, `porlan' is used exclusively in Basque
>and not at all in Spanish. Anybody know anything about this?
I don't really know, but I can imagine it has something to do with the fact
that there are many cement factories in the BC (Navarre included) and almost
all of them have a Portland sign on their deposits. People read it and they
start saying "some Portland" instead of cement. Something similar happens in
Spanish with Kleenex, for example.
Berrinet Q:)
Jose A. del Moral
Mr Agirre said:
>1)
>Caro Baroja considered Austrigones, Barduli and Caristii as Euskaldunak (see
>Los pueblos del norte). I read that book long ago but one of the reasons that
>I remember was that the frontiers between those tribes coincide with the
>frontiers between Bizkaiera, Ipuzkoera and Naparrera. Also he gives many other
>reasons supporting those three tribes were Euskaldunak
Not the Autrigoni, who also occupied large parts of Cantabria and Burgos
(and even Soria I think). It's very hard to know if they actually spoke Basque.
>Ecology and up to a point archeology supports the idea of the same culture
>north and south of the Pirinees.
I do agree that there are several reasons to think that Northern and
Southern Pyrenees had the same culture but I don't see what you mean by
Ecology and Archeology.
There are some Romans, for example, who say that "Both people speak a
similar language". I will do some research and find out what they actually
said and who said that.
>If vasconi, austrigoni, barduli and caristii were not eusko, what were they?
>where went them? and when those territories were euskaldunized?
That's not a good reason: they could be something else. For example, they
could have a culture extinguised by their Northern invassors.
Yours
Berrinet Q:)
Tim Nicholson
Ernest wrote:
> Porlan is the usually name given to cemento in basque. It is also the name
>of an enterprise called PORTLAND.
In fact, Portland is not a brand name but the name of a type of cement, made
from chalk and clay, which, when hard, resembles Portland stome in colour.
So now you know :)
Tim N.
Ernesto Lopez
Porlan is the usually name given to cemento in basque. It is also the name
of an enterprise called PORTLAND. Perhaps, It was the first kind of cement
exploted in Basque Country or perhaps too, this name was taken from the
first big cement factory installed here which was PORTLAND, I think. If
somebody goes from Gasteiz to Pamplona, near Olazagutia and on the left
side of the road will see one Portland cement factory. There can be read
PORLANDEGI which is the Basque traslation of "cement factory". I do not
know if it is accepted or not but there is.
Agur
Ernesto