Joseba A. Lakarra

On Ancient European and the Reconstruction of Pro to-Basque

1 INTRODUCTION•

Given the present state of Basque studies, much less developed than we would wish, and given, unfortunately, that there is no reason to believe that the situation is going to change in any drastic way in the near future, 65

it is not easy to express the gratified surprise of all B scholars at the ap-pearance in the Transactions of the Philological Society for 1994 of an article by Theo Vennemann entitled "Linguistic Reconstruction in the Context of European Prehistory". 1 This expectation existed, even before becoming aware of the prominent role played in the article by the B lan-

*Shortened version ofL 1996b [1999], with some bibliographical additions, translated by John Tynan. [This text was submitted to the editor at the beginning of2005; see "Endnote (Sept. 2012)". I owe Ander Egurtzegi his aid with the translation of the aforementioned note as well as the assistance with the edition of the whole article.]- This paper forms part of a research project (Monumenta Linguae Vasconum I-IV) supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia (=BFF 2002-03132, HUM 2005-0847, FFI 2008-04516, FFI 2012-37696), the GIC07/89-IT-473-07 and GIC.IT486-10 of Basque Govern­ment and the NFI 11/14 of the UPWEHU. Thanks to Carlos Bua and I van Igartua for valuable logistic assistance. - Abbreviations: AE = Old European languagelhydronymy/ toponymy; B = Basque; G = Gorrochategui; K = Kitson; KR = Krahe; L = Lakarra; M = Mitxelena; P = Proto; T = Trask; TO= Tovar; V= Vennemann; Vase= Vasconic; VIL = Villar. 1 I have only seen it cited, however, in T 1997, where some very relevant observations were made on the original article, though they were not always taken into sufficient ac­count by V.

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

guage, given the capacity of the author, both as regards the establishment of the sociolinguistic and historical framework in which the reconstruction of PB must be carried out and as regards more technical details of the phonology and morphology of the proto-language.

On reading the abstract of the article (V 215), we find that a large part of it directly affects B scholars: §5 The agglutinating structure of the language of the Old European toponymy, §6 The non-lE character of the language of the 0 ET, § 7 Grammatical sketch of the language of the OET, and, especially, §8 Structural and substantive similarities between the language of the OET and B, §9 The origin of the language of the OET. Other sections, dedicated fundamentally to the description of the AE hydronymy language and to a criticism of the analysis of this made by KR, also interest us deeply since they contain both implicit and ex­plicit ideas on the past of the B language and on the structure of PB, ideas which to a great extent constitute the basis of V's alternative to KR. As we shall see, on the basis of an analysis which differs greatly from that of KR and others, V proposes to demonstrate nothing more nor less than that the language of ancient Central European hydronymy

66 corresponds to a linguistic stock related to PB, the B language and the B people thus becoming the only survivors of the original pre-IE Europe. In spite of such flattering perspectives, an attentive reading of V's ex­tensive article does not, unfortunately, authorise us to conclude that here we find the great advance we could have expected for our field of study?. In what follows, while retaining a neutral stance between the analysis which V proposes for the toponymical data and K's 1996 reply3

, we will show that V's linguistic reconstruction does not correspond, in crucial aspects, to what we can reasonably assume about the structure of PB, and that, therefore we cannot relate AE4 with the B language5

.

2 I do not want to hide the fact that there are others, such as Lass 1997: 211-214 (see

§3.14b), who think differently. 3 VIL 1991, where an excellent account of the state of the art is to be found in so far as AE is concerned, and not lacking in ideas and personal research, cannot, given its date, be

considered a reply to V, although the second edition (1996: 98) explicitly rejects this

latter's proposals. 4 VIL (1996: 9lff.) associates AE with the lE invasions of the 5th millennium, from which other known languages have not survived, although he does not close the possibility

that some languages considered pre-IE may belong to this stratum (92); the historically

known lE languages would be descendents not of this, which served them as a substratum,

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

The structure of this article is as follows: First of all (§2), in as concise a manner as possible and so as to facilitate the ensuing discussion, we will describe the essential points of V's analysis of the AE hydronymic language, in so far as, in one way or another, they relate to the structure that can be assumed for PB. In (§3) we summarise the reasons given by V for interpreting his reconstruction of AE as equivalent to an ancient phase of PB or, indeed, as having been its origin and we examine the analysis and conclusions of V from the point of view of the reconstruc­tion of PB, differentiating between established facts (some of which are ignored by V) and more or less credible hypotheses which prevent us from accepting his conclusions. In (§4), we outline our most important conclusions, not very favourable to V's hypothesis but, we believe,

for example in the Iberian Peninsula (96 and 509-510), but of another, with important linguistic differences with respect to the 1st wave, which would correspond to the 4th millennium invasions. However (1 05), he recognises the limits which existing informa­tion imposes on the linguist when it comes to establishing more precise chronologies or to knowing the material culture of the peoples involved. In his opinion, the important morphological variation which can be seen in the hydronymic language is related to dia-lectal variation of the ancient IE language of the 5th millennium and it would be un- 67 thinkable if we were dealing with a unitary language (103). Although this does not alter KR's general theory, it does alter the chronology (which substantially recedes) and certain central ideas regarding the structure of AE (the antiquity of la! as against /a~ o/ in KR). On the other hand, VIL extends the number ofhydronyms, roots and suffixes identified, especially in so far as concerns the AE of the Iberian Peninsula (see 506-507 on its im-plantation and principal characteristics) and the process of Indo-Europeanization within the Peninsula (511-513), a process which was undoubtedly more complex than has heretofore been thought. 5 Incidentally, and in independence ofwhat we will see hereafter (especially in §3.1ff.), it seems strange that V does not support his theory with any examples from B topono­my, which, in principle, ought clearly to favour his hypothesis; he could have found material relative to the Peninsular B Country in De Hoz (1963), for example, a pioneer study on AE in the Iberian Peninsula or, more recently, in various papers by VIL now De Hoz 2010-11]. T (1997: 368) maintains that "the majority of river names in the B Country itself appear to be of non-B origin", although he recognises (329) that they have been little studied. As regards the names of mountains, which have not been very much studied either, he believes that about a half contain B etymology (33 I -332). T is certainly right when he speaks of the obscurity of the names of B rivers and specif­ically of Urumea. I am not sure, however, that a supposed *Ur-Umea (which, he claims, nobody has dared to propose) is the best possibility, not only for its "semantics" but also because of what we know regarding the evolution of (h )ur 'water' (cf. §3 .14 on urandra 'salamander'); a proposal for *Irun-be(he)a would easily surmount these ob­stacles.

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

more in line with the facts of B [see also the "Endnote (Sept. 2012)"]. The last section contains the bibliographl.

2 VENNEMANN ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN

2.1 V commences his long article by pointing out that quite a number of years have passed since philologists or linguists paid any attention to the linguistic origins of Central Europe7

, a topic which, he confesses, has appealed to him for several years (215)8

. The outlines of the area, (as he admits in n. 2) are not very precise: "I mean Europe north of the Alps, to the possible exclusion of the northern-most parts of Scandinavia and some areas of the Atlantic fringe" (215). V. assumes that the IEs first

6 In the footnotes I will reproduce (or surrunarise) parts of K and VIL 1996, whose ideas affect central areas of the data, hypothesis and arguments of V. On the difficulties posed by the N. and W. European substratum see Huld 1990 and Salmons 1992. 7 In V (1997) the author deals with "[s]ome West lE words which I suspect to be of Vase. or Atlantic origin" (897). On p. 880 he surrunarises his theories as follows: "In recent work I have sketched a theory of the linguistic prehistory of Europe north of the Alps

68 according to which this region was first -after the last ice-age, about ten thousand years ago-- taken possession of by speakers of Vase. languages, i.e. prehistoric (extinct) languages related to Modem B, while the western fringe of the region was from the middle of the 5th millennium onward colonized by speakers of Atlantic languages, i.e. prehistoric (extinct) languages which formed the Oceanic (Okeanic) branch of Atlantidic whose Mediterranean branch comprises languages of the Afro-Asiatic (Semito-Hamitic) language family (V 1994a, b, 1995). More accurately, since the Atlantic loans in the West lE languages reveal a particular closeness of Atlantic to Semitic (e.g. on account of the triliterality of their roots, for which compare Ehret (1995: 27-28) and since Proto­Afrasian (Proto-Afro-Asiatic) is much too early (cf. Ehret 1995: 483--490) to provide a proper time-level for the origin of Atlantic, Atlantidic should be reconstructed as only comprising Atlantic and Semitic and as forming a branch, the Atlantico-Mediterranean branch of Boreafrasian (Ehret 1995: 483-485) and ultimately of Afrasian- a family which may now, because of its European sub-branch, be called Eurafrasian. The Atlantic languages played the role of adstrata and superstrata with cultural dominance for the early W. lE languages; Palaeo-Germanic was probably the last language to be affected by this colonial spread. In Ireland -indeed in all of the British Isles with the possible exception of the land of the Picts- the Atlantic languages were later reduced to substrata by the pre­historic Celtic conquest". The importance and clarity of this justify, for my purposes, the length of the quote. 8 In the bibliography, the author includes several other works which bear witness to a prolonged dedication to this topic. The principal source of this present article is, how­ever, V 1994, though we will make occasional references to V 1997 and V 1998 [and now to V 2003 and 2006).

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

appeared in this area between the sixth and third millennium B.C.9, and

so could not have been the original inhabitants, given that the region has been populated at least since the last glaciation (approximately 10 000 years ago); this means that prior to their arrival another pre-lE language( s) must have been spoken there and V reminds us that several authors have tried to solve the problem of determining the family relationship of this language or languages by studying the terms of non-lE substrata which have been found in the languages of the lE families 10

• V decides to adopt a double approach, both linguistic and philological, understanding as such the study of the most ancient toponyrns, and especially the river­names, found in the areau. Naturally, on appealing to the analysis of AE

9 On VIL's proposals for a possible chronology seen. 4. As regards the extension, VIL is hardly any more than V; ef. VIL 1996: 94. In so far as the culture(s) which, according to archaeology would have corresponded to them. "The only material culture of the required level with a requisite spread across both western and eastern Europe is the one called either Danubian or after its ceramic decoration Linear Pottery [ ... ],lasting for most of the sixth and fifth millennia B. C., and I echo who have taken the linguistic evidence seriously in thinking that the material culture essentially corresponding to Common IE" (K 103). "The first successor culture centred in, or at least overlapping with, the Urheimat that does spread significantly west is that of the Beaker People al­ready mentioned, of the late third millennium. Bell-beakers are in fact the onZv archaeo­logical phenomenon of any period of prehistory with a comparably wide spread to that of river-names in the western half of Europe" (K 103-1 04).

:o See M 1953b/c, 1954 and 1967 (and recently T 1997: for the analysis of various works of Hubschmid on the substratum which affects the B language directly or indi­rectly; for the AE substratum in Palaeo-Hispanic see VIL 1996 (509-510) and De Hoz 2010-11. 11 K's opinion ofV's philological and linguistic rigour is not exactly favourable: "I sus­pect this is commonly, as in one of the most instances it certainly is, a case of loosely following Bahlow (1965), who, among other flaws for which V (224) castigates his 'poor philological scholarship', does not use asterisks. All this follows naturally from V' s rejection in principle (225-235) of all consideration of meaning before carrying out morphological analysis. That would at best render the methodology dubious, since (as wiser heads like Szemerenyi have not tired of reminding us) semantic links are what justify positing etymological links in the first place; yet granting it for the sake of ar­gument, it is then vital to have control of what is norm and what variation provided by observable frequencies in a large sample. But V that the undocumented additions to KR's names include ones radically at variance with the phonetic patterns in KR's, falsifYing the relative frequencies of vowels and the phonology of the suffixes which is central to his argument" (K 95-96, following the quote in n. 16, which see also). As will be seen in §3.4 and §3.6 our judgement ofhis use of the B evidence is no better.

69

70

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

hydronyms, V cannot ignore the magnificent work carried out by KR in this area in the 1950's, and by various followers and disciples in the fol­lowing years12

, specifically the theory of "AE hydronymy", "the only work at present available in this field", according to the author. However, and in spite of occasional respectful references and even accepting it as a linguistic contribution to the reconstruction of European prehistory, V' s opinion of the theory is clearly negative: "Nevertheless, excepting the magnificent presentation of a large part of its data base, I am convinced that nearly every aspect ofthe theory is wrong" (V 217). 2.2 While acknowledging KR's discovery of the complex morphological structure of this river-name language 13 (which he disputes later in the

article) and its geographic extension, V does not accept the principal con­

clusions of his predecessor regarding the interpretation of these hydro­nyms14, i.e. (1) the IE character, both of the roots and formation of these

hydronymic terms (221), (2) that these hydronyms represent not one spe­

cific IE language or PIE, but an intermediate level (W IE) common to Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Illyrian and, to a lesser degree, Slavic15,

12 For some ofthese, see V 222-3, to which should be added De Hoz's work, cited inn. 5, and several recent papers ofVIL such as 1990, 1993alb, 1995alb [see now VIL & Prosper 2005]. 13 Despite the fact that "AE hydronomy" is an established term, V (223) prefers to adopt "Old European toponymy", so as to differentiate it from the specific interpretation which KR makes of the river-name language. 14 Cf. K's abstract: "This paper examines Eilert Ekwall's English River-Names (1928) in the light of pan-continental 'Old European' river-naming patterns investigated by KR and his followers. Significantly many Celtic-looking names are shown to represent re­shapings of older names not specifically Celtic with meanings more frequently to do with water or flowing than Ekwall thought. The IEness of alteuropaisch river-names is upheld emphatically, with a critique ofV's (1994) contrary arguments. Its Common (not just western) IE origin is emphasized, yielding rational explanations for such features as the frequency of the vowel a" (K 93); "Be that [i.e. KR's adjectival names] as it may, their mere existence clinches the illegitimacy of ignoring overwhelming evidence for IEness of river-names because they do not fit preconceptions about phonetics of IE nouns. The linguistic material of the alteuropaisch river-names is IE, and they must be analysed rationally on that basis. I trust that I have somewhat advanced that analysis in the above" (K 113). According to K (76 and 106) it is difficult to find pre-IE names in Great Britain, even in Scotland. 15 On this point also, K differs from KR, since he prefers to assume that it is Common IE, not W. IE. The arguments that he adduces in favour include cases of Eastern survival

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

which share, besides, other lexical and grammatical features and that (3) due to their archaic structure and semantics these hydronyms must have originated before the first half of the 2th millennium B.C. 16

2.3 KR (cf. de Hoz 1963, VIL 1996) had identified almost a dozen suf­fixes in the river-name language: -a (-o-), -ia (-io-)1-ua (-uo-), -ma (-mo-)1-na (-no-), -ra (-ro-)1-la (-lo-), -nta (-nto-)1-ntia (-ntio-), -sa (-so-)/ -sia (-sio-), -sta (~sto-), -ka (-ko-), -ta (-to-). As can be seen, all ofthese are "postvocalic" (V 225), i.e. they have CV structure and the result of their addition to the base can again serve later as a secondary base for new derivations: Av-a > Au-ma, etc. V on the other hand, tries to dem­onstrate that they are better analysed as prevocalic (231 ), the theme being derived by syncope ofthe medial vowel 17

.

(Hittite, Tocharian, Old Indian) of lexical terms which correspond to the hydronyms analysed, the role played by certain frequently forgotten aspects of Eastern lE lan­guages as a morphological key in elucidating the W. names and even the similarities with Old Indian hydronymy as inherited from lE and AE. On some differences between KR's theory, K's and that ofVIL, seen. 4 above. 16 His conclusions are not shared by K: "The IEness of alteuropiiisch names was obvious to KR and his colleagues from the beginning. Occasional attempts to prove otherwise depend on ignoring a lot of the evidence presented above and falsifying some of it. A recent such exercise, that of V (1994), parades a technical linguistic (specifically mor­phological) virtuosity that may mislead the unwary but lacks proper control in several directions. The collapse of diachrony already mentioned in the argument about suffix­combinations resurfaces in the guise of addition without documentation of many new items to KR's list of alteuropiiisch names, ignoring early forms that are documented, and unsignalled use of examples that are not river-names. He thence admits to his stock of roots many that are not ancient substantive elements but German qualifiers, including apparently personal names" (K 95; see the continuation of our quote inn. 11). VIL (1996 and later work) also insists on the IEness of AE. 17 Cf. "KR's segmentation Al-ma-na and the like is established by a great number of examples. Instances with a preceding suffixal vowel like Med-ama-na are rare and re­quire to be explained as rarities; they do not at all justify V's systematic segmentation Med-am-an-a and the like. On standard accounts of lE, ( ... ), they are secondary phe­nomena, deriving from variants with sonant m, n, etc., which all the liquid and nasal suffixes had beside their consonantal versions. V's insistence on segmentation of the vowels as a first step rigs the probabilities against lE in a way not acceptable when testing affinities of linguistic material for which lE is known to be a candidate. Even discounting sonants, epenthetic vowels between voiced stops and following non-homorganic nasals are fairly common in languages! V should have chosen non-nasal suffixes, but then he could hardly have made his case" (K 97; seen. 18 and 20 below where I reproduce K's notes 42-43, corresponding to this paragraph cited here). On p. 111 K affirms: "lE ex­plains which suffixes do not occur as well as accounting for those that do".

71

72

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

2.4 According to V a, i and, to a lesser extent u are the suffixal vowels while e and o are dialectal and infrequent. V does not accept with KR that these form part of a system of ablaut a la lE, which led the latter to

affirm that these hydronyms were lE (231 ), since, the meaning being un­

known, we cannot affirm, for example, that -an, -in and -un are one and

the same suffix and not three different ones 18. Distributional reasons lead

V to assume that the hydronymic suffixes are either non-alternating or

are non-lE. 2.5 The agglutinating character of the language analysed seems evident to V when he analyses (232) as a reversal of the suffix order cases such as Al-ar-a, Sal-ar-a/Ag-ist-a, Ab-ist-a/Ac-r-ist-a, And-r-ist-a/Al-ist-r-a, Wil-ist-r-a (the suffixes r, st, r-st and st-r) 19

• V believes that it was the

18 This is not K's opinion: "At least wheter that is the reason or not, his statement that 'as KR's tables show' e and o 'are relatively infrequent' vowels and the three-vowel system of 'major suffixal vowels' a/i/u he derives from it are flatly false to the large

amount of material in KR (1962: 305-342), where u is clearly the least frequent vowel. It only occurs with some suffixes, and in general different suffixes have different vocalic possibilities, some open to explanation from general phonetics and many from IE ety­mology. This constitutes the evidence which V (231) denies exist 'to decide wheter, e.g., -an-/-in-1-un- are ablaut altemants of the same suffix, three different suffixes, or something else'. It also shows as the complications with nasals do that V's segmen­tational analysis is at too high a level of abstraction to be valid anyway" (K 96, n. 42; n. 17 above contains the text to which this note corresponds). VIL (cf. 1996: 94-95) is also clearly contrary to V's pretensions, cf. 1996: 98-99. See also his n. 36 and 92 (and the accompanying text) on the impossibility of explaining, through B, the roots and suf­fixes identified, correctly or not, by V in AE. 19 This argument is, according to K, particularly unfortunate: "A recent attempt by V (1994: 232) to show that suffixal combinations were not ordered ignores these [The grammar of river-name forrnants is looser than that of the language at large, owing to the large scope for analogy in such a relatively closed linguistic subsystem, but it still helps to account for the non-occurrence of some combinations and relative frequencies of those that do occur]. The only suffixes he proffers that 'reverse their relative order' are-st-and -r-. If they did it would resemble variation in double gradations of adjectives in some IE languages, reflecting partly changes in linguistic fashion over substantial pe­riods of time, V's argument depends on a tacit collapse of diachrony. Moreover nearly every one of his examples is suspect as one or more of: falsely segmented, not 'Old Eu­ropean', or not even a river-name. And with so many corners cut, V still is not able to show any single root with which two suffixes do occur in both orders. Altogether his argument is fairly trivially invalid, and the second-order deduction [from a maximum of two suffixes!] making the language of the hydronymy an agglutinating one a fortiori is"

(K 82-83).

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

fact that he was an IE scholar that led KR and a whole series of scholars to posit a postvocalic structure for hydronymic suffixes and to assume a non-agglutinating structure for the language in question20

, with the result that the whole analysis would now prove to be false if it were discovered that the language was not flexive but suffixal-agglutinating such as Turk­ish, Finnish, Japanese and others21

• Besides, V cites a series of Finnish postvocalic suffixes which, even if we assume for the river-names the structure proposed by KR, show that suffixes of this kind have little that is specifically IE (233): these Finnish suffixes are i, u, o, i + a, io,ja, u +a, va, ma, mo, in, ne, nne, ri, la, lo, nta, nto, nne (< nte), s, isa, (i)sta, is + ta, sto, kka, ta + a, tta + a, ita22

. These being clearly non-IE, it should not be accepted that those pointed out by KR were IE eithe~3 . On the other hand, V (234) is of the opinion that the semantic aspect of KR's etymologies is inadequate since it accepts as hydronymic bases colour adjectives and concepts which are abstract or more typical of modern civilizations24

.

20 But this is hardly acceptable: "Nor is his a priori assumption about uniformity of VC or CV segmentation across all suffixes justifiable anyway. It is really another Aunt Sal­ly, to aid discarding 'representations such as -na- (-no-) and -ta- (-to-)' which 'are pre­cisely what IEist are accustomed to'. Custom seems to have dulled his awareness that that presentation is simply shorthand for saying that these -n- and + suffixes are pro­ductive in the a- and a-declensions and not other declensions. Vowel-segmentation is ac­cidental not essential. V's argumentation here sits ill with a rather distastefully repeated insistence that his is a 'linguistic analysis which is in accordance with the methods of general morphology' (228-229), an accolade he denies KR's" (K 96-97, n. 43). 21 however, the end ofn. 19 above. Recall also his criticism (95, cited inn. 16 above) of the parade of"technical linguistic (specifically morphological) virtuosity" which V's analysis represents. 22 V no meanings for the suffixes of one or the other language since, according to him, nothing is known of the values ofKR's suffixes (on this, see also K, cited inn. 11 above). 23 The data do not seem to support him here: "More than a dozen roots and some dozen suffixes may be seen in a table by KR [ ... ] set out as a linguistic system, showing com­binations that occur of roots and suffixes. (Attested combinations are often multiply at­tested, so such a table nnderstates the element of patteming in their contrast with those that do not occur.) The linguistic material of the names is IE. Not only are most of the roots readily etymologized on that basis, but the suffixes also are those that were pro­ductive in IE. Quite a lot of single-consonant suffixes are productive in quite a lot of languages, so the most diagnostic are the complex ones, -st- forming superlatives and -nt- forming participles as already noted" (K 81 immediately following what has been reproduced in brackets in n. 19 above). On suffixes see also VIL (1996: 94-95).

73

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

2.6 Having now established, in his judgement, that the language of AE toponymy was not IE, V wonders what its grammatical structure might have been and more specifically if it was suffixal-agglutinating (234). Besides, in spite of the fact that the material only contains single-word names25

, V tries to give a small grammar for the language: phonology (vowels, quantity, consonants, syllabic structure, accent), morphology (inflection, word-formation, suffix structure) and the syntax of word or­der together with a series of other, more specific topics26

.

2.7 To begin with the morphemic and syllabic structure of the lan­guage, both appear to him to be simple, "as would be expected in an agglutinating language" (V 235): Name: Root (+Determiner) (+Deriva­tional suffix ) + Termination. There were no prefixes and the structure of the roots was (s)(T)(R)VC27

, elements within parenthesis being op­tional. Any consonant or glide, including Cw-, was allowed in initial position (236), although)- is infrequent. This last, according to V, should be seen as a feature which differentiates it from IE, in which "[I]nitialj is well attested -even though of infrequent occurrence-". When a

74 suffix (prevocalic, cf. §2.3) containing a C is added to a root and lacks a

24 "Yet he imports (233-234) strangely restrictive a priori notions of what it was possible for ancient people to notice in place-names" (K 1996: 97). And inn. 45: "Then early peoples made more distinctions than their successors, and more than earlier generations of scholars attributed to them, has been the message of English place-name studies in the last thirty years [ ... ]. It is all the more extraordinary, and quite unacceptable, for V (233-234) to reject a priori, as 'modem-feeling' and too specific, etymologies of KR involving adjectives of colour and position -which are among the commonest qualifiers in Old English place-names[ ... ] and may well have been so in much earlier times". 25 K (74), distinguishes two types of formation in English river-names: I) "River-names like other place-names formed within English are typically of two elements, one naming the kind of thing and one qualifying the individual thing" and 2) "single root with a deri­vational suffix, a process common in earlier stages of all the IE languages. Typically the meaning is not transparent to speakers of modem languages even on the Celtic side". 26 See the end of n. 20 above, as also footnotes 11, 16, and passim, on the slight philo­logical and linguistic rigour that K is willing to concede to V and, consequently, the slight value he concedes to his reconstruction as a description of AE. 27 We have substituted V's abbreviations for others used in Bascology. V suggests that there could have been certain habitual gaps in the structure such as sTl- or that only n is admitted in groups containing a velar. Some restrictions could have been late, after IEisation, according to V (236) but they are suggested by the data, in so far as he is con­cerned.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

V, then there must exist another posterior suffix - VC; in consequence, the only possible results are (s)(C)(C)VC-C-VC and (s)(C)(C)VC-VC; the segments alluded to are in bold). The syllabic structure of the lan­guage being in accordance with V's preference laws (cf. V 1988), pos­

sible contacts between groups of C's will be c-C, i.e. "minus-strength­strength." (23 7). 2.8 In the oldest stratum of AE, the only existing non-vocalic determiners were, according to V, those constituted by plosives, and these appear after roots with a final sonant (semivowel, liquid or nasal) or before s: ar-p,

ar-t, ar-k; ar-b, ar-d, ar-g; ar-s (23 7). All roots ending in -s could be­come voiceless plosives as could bilabials and velars with final-t (238)28

.

2.9 Non-determiner suffixes are -V(C)(C); if there is no C, -a alone appears in final position, e, i and u towards the end of the word, sandhi arising between these vowels and the previous one (238). It is not clear that other vowels can appear as suffixes (V believes not) and initially there would have been three (-a, -i, -u), only the last two remaining even­tually, derivative -a being lost when -a became the new termination. 2.10 The article being the grammatical head of its construction in an agglutinating language (as the hydrologic language was for V as we have seen), -a would initially be the definite article for AE, -even if later, under the influence of IE it became a mark of feminine gender- then occupying it natural place at the end of the word (238-239i9

.

2.11 The structure of the word in AE would be (s)(C)(C)V(c)-C(V(c)­

C)(V), -a being added at a later stage. We would have syllables CV(C)­with expansions to CcV(c), sCV(c) and sCcV(c), V(C) appearing only in word-initial and word-final position (239-240). Heads of complex syl­lables only appeared in non-initial position, as a result of late syncope: Ind-r-ist-a < *In-d-ar-ist-a, Al-ist-r-a < *Al-ist-ar-a (240). V assumes

28 V §§3.8, 3.11, and 3.12 on segmentation and final/lengthening, especially in velars. Both here and in §2.18.1. V acknowledges that the analysis is purely formal, granted our ignorance of the meanings of the items, and so we cannot know if we are dealing with only one or with different suffixes and roots. 29 However, cf. "The fragments of etymology from B produced out of a hat as it were by V at a late stage of his argument (260-262) are not a convincing substitute, not least because of collapse of chronology again. He does not properly meet the objections of Dr. R. L. Trask in his [= V's] n. 82 on his 'determiner' suffix" (K 98, n. 45) [see now Manterola 2006].

75

76

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

that epenthesis appeared in some groups such as Ambra < *Am-(a)r-a (ibid}0

.

2.12 The phonological inventory proposed by V for AE consists of five vowels (a, e, i, o, u) and three diphthongs (au, ai, eu); these last might be a late result of the syllabification (vocalically) of determiners with a sonant. Otherwise there should have existed final -euC, -aiC, -auC, which do not appear to be attested (241 ). V does not admit the existence of quantity oppositions, proposed by KR and his disciples a la lE in soli­darity with ablaut (grade zero, grade full, grade lengthened); in his opinion, the long vowels would have arisen later, when AE was adapted to the structure of lE. In this process, subphonemic variants of AE could have become phonemes in different ways in lE -long vowels and short vowels- due, for example, to accent, and even giving the appearance of ablaut on occasion: -i:s/-is, -vi:s/-vis31

• Given that lE geminates only appear in very specific contexts, the hydronymic lan­guage could have had a long/short opposition in consonants, this being later neutralized on passing to lE (242i2

. In spite of everything, how­ever, V recognises that he has not been able to establish a quantity op­position for consonants. 2.13 In the consonantal inventory of AE, V (242-243) includes six plo­sives (in mutual opposition due to "sonority, tension or both together"33

30 This would be difficult to understand in a scenario such as that envisaged by K, for whom these terms are for the most part adjectives (see llOff.), and "stress in adjectives as in other parts of speech was levelled variously according to the accentual types of the descendant languages [ ... ],but it is likely that all the main kinds of adjectives, including all those represented in river-names, were originally accented on the suffix" (K Ill, with reference to Lubotsky and to Hirt; the italics are mine). 31 ForK "The purported account (235-242) of other aspects of 'the language of the Old European toponymy' is largely an elaboration of the invalid initial analysis [i.e. that AE was not lE], with some curious explaining away of similarities to lE and a priori rejection of vowel-quantity (241-242) and of the possibility of historical change in the accentual system" (97). And inn. 44: "His argument that the hydronymic language had initial accent through its ( +/-pre )-history (245-246) is circular. The a priori assumption of constancy of accentual type over millennia is on the evidence of known languages implausible anyway". 32 In footnote 72 (V 274), T's 1985 proposal (simple/gemminate opposition) is termed "very elegant". In any case, T 1997 returns to the standard construction of M 1957a and later work (except in so far as aspiration is concerned: on this last, cf. G & L 200 I, L 2009c ). 33 Perhaps because it happened that way, or because in some other language with which it is later compared there were proposals in both directions? In any case, some kind of

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

p, b, t, d, k, g), a sibilant voiceless fricative s, two velars m, n, with an assimilating velar variant before a velar plosive, and two liquids, /, r, and the glides j, w. The existence of a voiceless labiovelar is not certain since, given the existence ofprevocalic sequences with su-, etc. it might simply have been the sequence ku (Cc). Naturally, other consonants may have existed (V proposes more liquids and sibilants, see the previous section) but they do not appear to have left sufficient trace for recon­struction. 2.14 The non-sibilant fricatives, f, h, (J do not appear to have belonged to the AE inventory in spite of the fact that the author is conscious that hydronyms containing them abound in Central Europe; V (243-244) explains their presence not by the Germanic consonantal division, as other authors have done, but by the extension of the Paleo-Italic sub­stratum of the second millennium B.C. 2.15-2.16 Among KR's hydronymic terms, close to 45% of the total entries correspond to A-34

. V explains this fact by assuming a class of laryngeals, later lost, among which one would have coloured the follow­ing vowel with this tone (244-245): in a general process *HV- > *hV- > *V-, then *cV- > *ea-> *ha-> *a-. To the above inventory for AE we 77 would have to add the voiceless character of the plosive groups and the assimilation of nasals preceding plosives. (V 245; cf. §3.5 and §3.7). 2.17 Although he can affirm nothing about tone features, V assumes the existence of a demarcation feature -by hypothesis, since we are dealing with an agglutinating language- for the hydronymic language (245; see §3.9)35

• To determine the location of this stress, V examines other characteristics, concomitant to the stress, such as observable syn-

commentary should have been made on the place of the voiceless labial (fortis) which M left empty in his reconstruction of PB. 34 K (in a paragraph cited above, at the end of n. 11) speaks of "falsifying the relative frequencies of vowels and the phonology of the suffixes which is central to his[= V's] ar­gument", and in his n. 75 (111) we read "It is again naughty ofV (1994: 244) to call his laryngealist explanation 'the only kind of explanation that I know'. At least he does not quite go so far in his laryngealism as to posit a proto-IE in which the vowel a never existed, as Kuiper does", with which the remainder of the paragraph loses a lot of its interest; see however §§3.3-3.4, 3.6. See also VIL on the original character of a and the lateness of o. 35 In this and the following three paragraphs it should be remembered that K assumes "suffixal stress" (cf. n. 30 above). K (see note 17) explains Almana as an exception to the general rule. On the other hand, VIL (1996: 506) believes there is a certain amount of evidence to support "free stress" in AE.

78

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

copes in *Alamana > Alma, *Alamana > Almana. Assuming that the words had a different extension and that, therefore, there could not have been a stress system which counted syllables from the final position, V assumes that the stress would have been on the initial syllable36

. The assumption of initial stress would accord with the presence in that posi­tion of syllabic onsets which were more complex than those found an­ywhere else, the latter being much more a characteristic of stressed syl­lables than those which are non-stressed. Equally, the fact that the stress should occupy the first position (i.e. in monosyllabic roots) would explain that what were initially the only determinants of the root (prevocalic plo­sives as will be remembered) should lose their second syllable (post-tonic) vowel: *A-la-ba > *Al-b-a >Alb-a. This stress (very different from the initially variable stress of IE) would explain, according to V the later syncopations of the hydronymic language and would even explain why Germanic, Celtic and Italic should have adopted the same initial stress due to the effect of the same shared substratum in which precisely this stress obtained. 2.18 V reminds us that the supposed existence of ablaut, both in the roots and in the hydronymic suffixes, was one of the principal reasons for KR's assumption that it was an IE language (247). V minimizes the importance of its possible existence in AE since the ablaut phenomenon is, in any case, found in a number of the world's languages. But, above all, V insists on the impossibility of demonstrating that AE contained ablaut since, not knowing the meanings of the roots, it is impossible for us to tell whether or not they pertained to the same paradigm (247)37

. Be­sides, he argues that even if ablaut did exist, it was of necessity radically different from that of IE, in which e and o alternate with zero and long grade but not with i, as, for example, in the case of Alara : Ilara, which could not be related in KR's system either. In the system proposed by V for the hydronymic language, in which the root is found in the first (al-

36 This, incidentally, is the same argument as that used by M (as against Azkue's idea that there was no rule) regarding stress in the B of Bidasoa (cf. M 1977) [see now L 2006a, 2011 b, Elordieta 2011a!b and Martinez Areta 2009]. 37 The last part of this argument, relating to the absence of a semantics for the hydro­nymic morphs, has been answered by K in the paragraph cited above in n. 11. In n. 18 above, reference is made to the impossibility of deciding whether or not -an-/-in-1-un­one ablaut paradigm; see there also VIL's comments on ablaut in VIL 1991.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

ways stressed) syllable, zero grade is not possible in the root. From this it follows, for example, that 1!-, Al- and Ul- are, in principle, different roots, none of them having any prior claim to include any of the others as possible alternants (247-248). In general, V assumes that all vowels had the same importance in AE, and denounces KR's "IE trap", which, he claims, iguores the numerous cases in which the five vowels appear in radically similar schemas and so might or might not belong to the same root and be related by ablaut. In there is no evidence for the ablaut proposed by KR, the five vowels having one and the same status, and, in any case, it is not the vowel e which predominates, so fundamental in IE in terms of its frequency and the wideness of its distribution, but rather the a (248; see §§3.3-3.4). According to V there could have existed vo­calic harmony in the hydronymic language between the root and the suf­fixes: ile i, u/o = u, a =a, (this being a common phenomenon in ag­glutinating-suffixallanguages. In his opinion, however, this phenomenon, if it existed, ceased before IEisation, as is shown by the numerous words invariably terminating in -a (and not in a harmonized suffix) and the al­ternations Almana/Almina (ibid.; cf. §3.4 on vowel harmony in B). 2.19 While, V argues, a is seldom found in classical IE reconstructions, 79

it is common, and even predominant, in AE, in initial position, final po-sition, in roots and suffixes. V, following Kuiper and others, considers this one of the major arguments against the IE character of the hydro-nymic language (249-250i8

• For V, the abundant presence of a in AE is not a problem, however, but simply constitutes one more feature of this language and could even help to discover its genetic origins, which, for other reasons, he believes he has demonstrated was not IE (251 ). The fact that there was no alternative theory to that ofKR (and since, as the sociology of science shows, no theory is defeated only with data) ex-plains, in his opinion, why it has persisted for so long in spite of the very serious anomalies which, he believes, he has demonstrated (251-252)39

.

38 See K ( 11 0-113) for a refutation of this and the following two paragraphs. Note the irony: "in linguistics as in other subjects people who operate on that level of abstraction, whether motivated as structuralists or deconstructionists, tend not to be convinced by anything so mundane as detailed evidence" ( 11 0). The analysis of the hydronyms as ad­jectives n. 30) related with an elided name such as aqua weakens V's argument and for this reason K concludes that "some typologically minded linguists[ ... ] have used the great frequency of a as compared to e in the river-names as a pretext for holding them not lE at all" (110).

80

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

2.20 V assumes that, accepting the suffixal-agglutinating character of the language, it would have had a prespecifying, head-final word order (XV, SOV) such as Turkish or Japanese, this syntactic order being the only one harmonious with morphological root-suffix order (252). Ac­cording to V, the prespecifying order of AE would have influenced the conservation of this same order in Continental Celtic -in the same way as Dravidic influenced the IE languages of India- as distinct from In­sular Celtic which quickly became postspecifier (252-253)40

.

2.21 V maintains that the language of AE toponymy, analysed in the terms outlined in §§2.1-2.20, was not IE. The problem of the a would not, he believes, destroy this conclusion but could be accommodated to it, the same as other non-lE features described above.41 Given, however, that it is probably of more interest to the linguistic community to know what AE was, rather than what it was not, he feels the need to advance a hypothesis regarding its filiations.

39 As has been made very evident throughout these footnotes, both K and VIL think very differently. 4° K's n. 44, cited above at the end ofn. 31, ends as follows: "Likewise the 'speculation about word order' (252-253) betrays ignorance of actual changes in the history of e.g. insular Celtic. Compare particular points addressed in notes 68, 74, and 75 below". The last two may be found here in footnotes 66 and 34 respectively; number 68 is as follows: "Kuhn (1962); cf. Meid (1984). One or other group of such people would be enough to explain the voiceless fricatives that surprise V (1994: 243) in some names, which he does not exemplify, if any are as he asserts inexplicable from the known history of Ger­manic (and Gaulish) and their speakers. He is either naughty or ignorant to call his ex­planation 'the only one in existence' (244)." 41 K not only radically disagrees with this idea, as we have already seen at length, but also affirms that '"Old European' river-names have furnished evidence of a newly direct kind in the long-running dispute about the so-called Urheimat or 'original homeland' of the lE-speakers" (1 00) and, after criticising other hypotheses (among them those of Renfrew and Gamkrelidze which seem to him "not serious contenders" (101), he main­tains that "The contribution of river-names to this argument is that in Europe south of the Baltic and north of the Alps and Carpathians, between roughly the Rhine in the west and perhaps the Don in the east, all ancient river-names are etymologically alteuropiiisch [ ... ] homogeneously alteuropiiisch area was inhabited by people of alteuropiiisch, that is lE, linguistic stock before the surrounding areas were. It agrees pretty well with maps that get drawn from distributions of flora and fauna" (ibid.). For the problem posed by the hydronymy with a in non-levelled lE dialects seeK (105ff.) and VIL (1996: 101); inn. 54 below will be found a summary ofVIL's treatment of a, and in VIL 1996 (104-5) an analysis of the relation between the lack of substratum in the AE territory and the latter's character as the original lE homeland, which is alluded to by Kat the beginning of this note.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

2.22 In V's opinion (262), the simplest explanation for all the foregoing observations -and for others which will be discussed in what follows­

would be to assume that the language of AE toponomy and the languages of S. Europe (excluding Etruscan)42 are related. In his own words:

I do not think that the language of the toponymy is itself either B, Iberian, or Ligurian. But I do believe that all four languages belong to the same linguistic stock. I call this language family Old European, also, in honor of the only surviving member, Vase., its Ursprache Proto-Vasc. (= Palaeo-Basque) (V 262t3

•

V, together with some previous authors such as Hubschmid, assumes that B belonged to a homogeneous Mediterranean group, which would

include Ligurian (262). Before the IE expansion, this group would have occupied, apart from the B and Iberian zones (though this is not made explicit, it is suggested by the context), the north of France, the Low Countries, the British Isles except for the Atlantic fringe, Austria, Ger­

many, Scandinavia (excepting the north), the N. Balkans, the Baltic and the Southern and W. Slavic zones, all later to be reduced by the IE ex­pansion (262-263). The Basques would not have come from the Cauca­

sians or from Africa, as has sometimes been proposed, but would be the only original Europeans to maintain their identity in a completely IEised W. Europe (V 263; cf. VIL, at the end of §4) The expansion of the S.

European languages towards the territory in which we later find the an­cient river-names must have taken place, according to V, around 10 000 years ago, at the end of the last glaciation. It would have been necessary

just then to name lakes and rivers and other features of the terrain (263; cf. in n. 4 the AE chronology of VIL, which is a revision of later KR). Since these southern peoples all spoke very similar languages, they gave unitary names to the geographical features of their new surroundings and

would also have used the same names for their camp grounds and their later settlements. Later, the IEs apparently adopted this toponymy to the

42 He does not explain the reason for this exclusion, so we have no way of knowing what he thinks of Adrados' (1989) hypothesis that Etruscan was non-Hittite Anatolian; cf. Woudhuizen (1991) and de Hoz (2001). 43 Cf. "In my view, the assumption that Iberian and B are genetically related languages has the status of a null hypothesis" (V 273, n. 67). For a discussion of this assumption see §3.2; on Del Cerro's work (favourably reviewed by Bossong as V points out), which follows the Humboldtian line of research, to which he says he adheres, see L 1991 [and De Hoz 2010-11, L 2012h].

81

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

structures of their languages without really changing it very much (V 263-265)44

.

3 VENNEMANN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

3.0 Our aim in reconstruction centres on the analysis and discussion of certain structures of the B language, so as to obtain from this analysis a certain semblance of archaic states of the language which will be anterior to those obtained heretofore in standard research (cf. M 1950, 1951, 1954, 1957a, 1964a, 1971, 1974, 1977, etc.). It should be very clear that if many of the conclusions arrived at in all linguistic reconstruction must be treated with prudence and caution, the specific circumstances sur­rounding the case of B oblige us to be conscious that our proposals can only with difficulty achieve anything more than a certain level of veri­similitude. In the still insufficiently analysed field of lexis there are two differentiated sets; on the one hand there is the homogeneous and not very numerous set of Aquitanian terms with a good and acceptable B etymology (cf. G & L 1996 and the bibliography cited there) and, on

82 the other, the ample patrimoniallexis of B, on occasions with very late documentation. An attempt must be made to explain the structural, dis­tributional and combinatorial preferences shown by morphemes. When there are clear combinatorial preferences for morphemes and these occur in a significant number of cases we can then speak of the etymology of a B patrimonial word. An etymology for a word in any IE language seeks first to explain its structure on the basis of clearly defined elements in the given language, these being in a relationship of correspondence with elements of other related languages, all of them, it is assumed, derived from a previous but vanished linguistic phase, IE. In the case of B, one

44 After conceding that "Still V deserves thanks for supplying what had been a gap in the literature and showing us what a seriously worked up attempt to analyse the alteuro­paisch linguistic material as non-lE would look like. It is reassuringly much less coherent than the traditional IE versions" (K 97-98), in his n. 46 he adds: "This goes too in my opinion for the palaeontological theories which V reveals (215, 263, etc.) effectively underlie his linguistic ones ~ in effect a new kind of autochthony since time out of mind. He propounds an axiom 'Toponyms are rarely changed, they are merely adapted' (264), which known history ancient and modem of migrant conquerors shows to be untrue. 'Since they all spoke closely related languages' (263) begs large questions, made more explicit, if not necessarily answered, inK (forthcoming)".

l

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASOUE

can isolate with absolutely no difficulty the constituent morphemes of

terms such as gizontxo 'little man', gizarte 'society', gizaxo (gizagaxo) 'poor man' (with the compositional variant giza- which enters into regu­

lar alternations known through other examples: asto 'donkey' : asta-belar

'grass of(the) donkey', baso 'wood': basa-jaun 'lord ofthe wood'), etc.,

and arrive at the conclusion that gizon 'man, male' is a basic element which, for the moment, does not permit any further division into parts.

The division into constituents should continue with the discovery of com­binations of identical or related elements which, though they may not

correspond to any living autonomous morpheme in historic B, may rea­

sonably be interpreted as productive morphemes from an earlier phase of

the language. The B word for 'black' is beltz (Biscayan baltz), although

we can postulate the existence of a more simple form *bel, which re­

mained restricted to a few compounds such as harbel 'slate', horbel

'fallen leaves', goibel 'dark sky', ubel 'purple, bruised, turned purple', ospel 'chilblain' and perhaps sa-bel 'stomach' (cf. sa-min 'intense pain',

sa-kon 'deep') in which we can still clearly see the general meaning of

'black' for *bel, added to harri 'stone', horri 'leaf', goi 'high, sky' and 83

(h)ur 'water' (eventually more to *sa-). Another principle -deep-rooted in non-amateur Bascology (et pour

cause!)- by which we are guided consists in giving greater weight to

analyses based on the study of the internal data of the language than on

comparative relations with other languages or external elements. In this

sense, possible comparisons with Iberian or other languages ought to be

carried out on the basis of results obtained in the reconstruction of their

most distant phases (cf. G & L 1996). But even leaving Iberian aside, any

ancient term of a non-self-evident sort which is used in the explanation

of aB term must give way before an etymology based on the known

lexis of the language; cf. L 1997b, 2008b on the relation between internal

and comparative reconstruction in the case ofB45.

45 As is pointed out in G & L 1996, there is widespread acceptance of the idea that euskara, the term used to denote the language itself, derives from the ethnic term Ausci, a well-know village in Aquitaine. This is still affirmed today, on p. 109 of Martinez Lizarduikoa, for example, to which reference is made at the end ofn. 113 below. Al­though no satisfactory explanation has been found for Ausci, the two terms have been linked for comfort, more than for anything else, assuming in the process non-justified

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

3.1 We have already indicated our surprise at the fact that V, in defence of his thesis, does not use any terms taken from B toponymy. It would seem that this should be the principal sanctuary of AE if the language in which it is given expression is really the successor of that in which, in its day, AE was formed. Can this be attributed perhaps to the undeveloped state of B toponymic studies or is it perhaps that the author did not find what he was looking for? Nevertheless, it is not the case that in the lit­erature on AE we do not find reference to toponomy of this type in the B Country. In De Hoz 1963 we find in peninsular B Agaunza (G., 230), Amarita (A., 232), Anzo (N., 232) andAnzuola (G., ib.), Areso (N., ib.), Arnauri (V., ib.), Arga (N., 233), Carranza (V., 235), Nervi6n (V., 236), Burunda (A., 238), Abando andAbanto (V., 239), Aberin (N., ib.), Albina (A., 240), Armentia (A., ib.), Argandoiia (A., ib.). On p. 231 Alvia ("969, actual Alva, Guarda") is cited but not Albia (V.), On p. 232 Araya from Caceres but not that of Alava/Araba, nor is there any mention there of Araxes ... De Hoz gives various proofs of the wide diffusion ofthe ancient hydronymic language in the Peninsula. Further on we are told: In my opinion, we should postulate an initial, wide IEisation of the Peninsula by western

84 elements which were still little differentiated, from which, as a result of later invasions, indigenous reaction and grouping, diverse, more differentiated groups were to arise (De Hoz 1963: 241 [cf. VIL 2005 and De Hoz 2010-11 ]).

VIL (1996: 506-514 and 1995b [see now VIL & Prosper 2005]) has extended and further elucidated for the Iberian Peninsula the work and conclusions arrived at by KR and De Hoz; to the thirty or more roots analysed by the former, VIL has added another fifteen roots to those docu­mented in Palaeo-Hispanic AE, as well as providing many new examples for those already known. The new data allow us, he maintains, "to estab­lish a respectable list of identifying characteristics of the hydronymic

changes such as au- > eu-. M (FHV, 100, n. 19), to get out of the fix, ventured *eusk- as the original form, transcribed to Latin by means of a diphthong which was much more in accord with that language: Ausci. In any case, the variants on the term in different dialects (heuskara, uskrira, iiska(r)a take us back in the first instance to a diphthong *eu- and some other element which would have been the antecedent of the aspiration in the con­servative Northern dialects. Irigoien (1977) is undoubtedly correct when he draws into the question the strange form documented by Garibai [161

h c.] for the name of the language, enusquera, and relates it to a participle *enausi, to which the synthetic forms derasa, diraust, diotso, etc. ('he speaks, he tells me, he tells him') belong [actually, *e-non-tz-i; see L 2006a-c]. *h2 > h1 (*ehuskara > heuskara is Post-Aquitanian, medieval song law, cf. L 2008d).

, ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

language" (506), i.e.: (1) It is an /a/ language; (2) Initial and intervocalic /p/ are indistinct; (3) The aspirated series is voiced; ( 4) There is no trace of consonantal rhotacism; (5) Velars are not palatalised; (6) The voice­less labiovelar is retained intact (there are only uncertain indications of the rest so far); (7) Sonants in /u/ are vocalised; (8) Stress position is free; (9) It has the appellative *akw a; (1 0) It uses *akw a as a hydronymic stereo­type; (11) It has the order NP+NC (cf. VIL 1996: 507). This set of fea­tures, to be extended in future research, would confer on the hydronymic language its own distinct personality, which would prevent us from at­tributing these same characteristics to any other historic language (Celtic or Lusitanian) in the Peninsula. 3.2 V believes that after his criticism of KR's theory, readers will have perceived that the language of central European toponomy has typological

characteristics similar to those of B (253). He then points out that he be­came aware of this typological similarity between AE and B on seeing

the tabulation of reconstructed Iberian and Old B presented by Anderson (1988)46

. To this must be added that B is a suffixal-agglutinating and

prespecifying language just as that of AE toponomy analysed a la V (254-255), which, added to the similarities immediately following, en­

courages him to continue with his comparison between AE and B.

Anderson's work is certainly not the most appropriate place to look for typological, or any other characteristics of the B language. In spite of the fact that he quotes M (1977: 3 71 ff.) as source for his phonological table

of "Ancient B" (1988: 317), nasals and strong laterals, and especially the

aspirated fricative, are all missing. If we add to this certain details, -of a certain importance in my opinion- such as the failure to warn of the absence, except in borrowings and verbal forms of the present (on this

latter see Trask 1977 and De Rijk 1992), of d-in B, the presence in Iberian (but not in B) of theme-final plosives and of various consonantal groups47

or their obviation in Iberian by the famous and controversial Y48, we can

46 Literally "I first became aware of this similarity when I happened to see the tabulations of the reconstructed Iberian and Old B phoneme inventories in Anderson" (1988: 117-119). See Quintanilla (1998: 32-35) on the phonological similarities and differences be­tween Iberian and Aquitanian-8, although I see no support for his hypothesis that Iberian final plosives could be desinences (as he erroneously seems to assume for Old B). On TO's idea of multiple relationships for B seen. 58.

85

86

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

then understand that V's approach to PB, and to any other wider group

which would include it, will be somewhat out offocus49. As G points out

in his review "Anderson does not achieve his objective however [i.e. to

offer to the public at large a new linguistic presentation of Pre-Roman Hispania, which would gather the latest documentation and the most re­

cent advances in research]" (1989: 306). And he adds:

In the analysis and interpretation of non-lE texts, however, he departs from the majority of scholars and offers explanations based on very personal analytic and comparative methods [ ... ] little shared by other colleagues. In the introductory chapter he puts forward his ideas and methods in two important aspects: (a) the morphological analysis of Iberian segments, which he divides and combines at

will, without any kind of additional justification, in a manner which vividly brings to mind the most significant pre-Humboldtian work

(b) B-Iberian comparison, in which there is very great laxity and imprecision (G 1989: 306)

V has, fortunately, other sources, such as, crucially, M 1954, 1957a, 1973 and 1977 (though he does not always follow these, cf. here §3.6 on aspiration) and a very wide interlinguistic experience which permits him to avoid in part the risks of following such a guiding light. On the other

47 TO (1962: 172) points out that he does not find -b (nor naturally -p), but he expressly draws attention to the fact that both the voiced and voiceless dentals and velars are found in final position. 48 It is significant that Valeri (1987: 269) should commence his article on Iberian sonants as follows: "Ne! panorama dei problemi posti dalla decifrazione della scrittura iberica

ve n'e uno che sembra appassionare particolarmente gli studiosi: il valore fonologico del segno Y". While Velaza (1996: 41) prefers to follow Siles in giving it the value /na/ (whose syllabogram is otherwise very scarce), Valeri assumes that this graph corresponds to the consonantal part of the nasal, as against /n/ which would represent the sonant. In so far as the consonantal groups are concerned, TO (1962: 179) cites /nsc/, /nst/, /mst/, /rib/, /rsl/, /rst/, /rsd/ and /lsc/ as well as other simpler biconsonants (see Quintanilla 1998); it does not seem as if any of these could have been found in interior position in PB mor­phemes or even later, and the majority were not allowed in boundary positions either; cf. towards the end of §3.7 [see now De Hoz 2010-11]. 49 Anderson 1993 cannot be said to suppose any essential improvement: in addition to what is pointed out in the text, we find non-existent B words and variants or too modem for comparison, erroneous meanings or prepared ad hoc, etc. Other contemporary and more recent authors such as Roman del Cerro (1990, 1993) or Alonso (1996, 1997, 1998, Amaiz and Alonso 1998 and some others, including Turkish, Ancient Egiptian, Hitite, etc., new translations via Basque language) hardly deserve to be mentioned outside publications concerned with spiritism or black magic, were it not for were it not for the peculiar arrogance, impertinence and ignorance of their authors; see De Hoz 1999.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

hand, the theory of a B-Iberian genetic relation a la Humboldt, which to V

seems the "null hypothesis" in this case, is anything but the most logical

option here. As has been pointed out by Meillet, M and Hamp (cf. §4),

among a multitude of lesser luminaries, it is precisely those who propose

such a hypothesis who should, in this case, offer sufficient and acceptable

proofs to the linguistic community, and V knows full well that this has not occurred and, what is more, in the present state of our knowledge (the

evidence, extent and force of the reconstructive method) it is difficult to imagine that anything of that nature is likely to happen anytime in the

near future. Another final turn of the same screw: if V were right and B

were genealogically related to Iberian, on the one hand, and to AE, on

the other; we would then expect, through transitivity, that Iberian and

AE should be related to one another. V does not even mention this and,

in so far as I know, nobody has taken up the topic, not even those who,

like Tovar and De Hoz, have carried out research on both languages: for them there is no doubt regarding the IE filiations of AE. 3.3 V admits (254) that though the first impression we obtain on com­paring the phonemic inventories of the three languages (B, Iberian and AE) is suggestive, the five-vowel system is, nevertheless, very common -we might add that so also are the three grades of openness 5°- and

the consonantal systems are not in any way out of the ordinary either, if we except the absence of non-sibilant fricatives. 51 He adds, besides, that the reconstruction of AE is still a mere possibility and certain areas of the

structure of Ancient B are still under debate. All of this is very reasonable and we cannot but agree; however, it should be said that the consensus about PB reconstruction is greater than V (and most certainly Anderson!) seem to think; so, among other important questions, that agreement would include, crucially, for the oldest reconstructible phases of aspiration,52

two types of nasals and laterals -as well as the vibrants- two modes of

50 T (1997: 366) again points this out; there are, nevertheless, those who speak of aB, substratum in Sp, precisely because of this type of vowel system. 51 I can find no commentaries on the absence of m in PB and Iberian (as is mentioned in the source Anderson 1988: 217) as compared with their abundance in AE; cf. T (1997: 133-135 and previously 1996) on the arguments which lead to its non-postulation in PB. 52 As everybody knows, M showed on various occasions this feature can act as a kind of shibboleth among the languages of W Europe (it is only found in B, is lacking in IE. languages and in Iberian); see, for example, M 1962-63, G 1998 and L 2012h.

87

88

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

articulation in sibilants, the inexistence of voiceless and nasal bilabial phonemes, the absence of the voiced dental from initial position and of all voiced plosives in final position. It could even be said that the fortis/ lenis opposition would be given important support (and not only socio­logical) if not for Common B, then at least for PB (cf. T 1997: 366)53 It is true that PB only had five vowels -or that historic B has not re­tained proof of any other vocalic opposition, which for the reconstruc­tor amounts to the same thing- and that there was no contrast based on length (§2.12); however, M assumed the existence of five diphthongs in PB as compared with three proposed by V for AE (ai, eu, au, all sec­ondarily derived from the vocalisation of sonant determiners). Besides, though some may be very changing and even more recent than others [see L 2010a, 2012h], there is no reason to believe that any of them is derived from an older sonant, whether these be root determiners or whatever, for the simple reason that there are no proofs for the existence of syllabic consonants, contrary to what happens in IE and AE (and in Kartvelian and Berber; cf. L 1998b ). 3.4 V is correct in affirming that B makes an abundant use of the vowel a in all positions (255; cf. T 1997: 367), though he is somewhat less so when he refers to the supposed causes. According to V the majority of B dialects do not possess h and in those in which it exists it is generally in free variation with zero (255). Since it is supposed that Ancient B and Aquitanian made ample use of this phoneme, V assumes a law of Grass­mann's for Aquitanian which would eliminate the first of two hh in initial position in consecutive syllables (ibid.), which, let it be said in passing, will need to be qualified a lot in the face of examples such as Hahani, Hontharris and others (cf. G 1984), even for the medieval epoch. V wonders if, in initial position, in those dialects in which h has disap­peared or in which it is in free variation with zero, some phenomenon

53 See a few paragraphs down an operative definition for both terms; for a more extensive discussion, see L 1997b [and now L 2012a]. The parallelism between this system and Aquitanian is well-known (cf. M 1954, De Hoz 1981, G 1984; see also Ariztimuiio 2011) as is indicated at the end of §3.5. I leave for another occasion the discussion of Hualde 1997a, where it is assumed that the opposition between PB plosives was a voiced/voice­less one; apart from the fact that this cannot aspire to be anything more than a notation­al variant (Hualde does not provide any additional etymology with respect to M; by the way, neither does Trask [1985]), this idea breaks the parallelism which M had estab­lished between the plosives and consonantal liquids and sibilants; cf. L 2008b.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

worth commenting on occurs with the vowels and in particular with a

(255). According to his calculations, words with initial vowels represent somewhat more than half the total of B words, (a with 17% being "quite frequent"), which seems to him quite remarkable given that there are twelve consonants which compete with them in this position (255-256). From all of this V deduces that the proposal, previously put forward for AE, to explain the abundance of initial vowels as attributable to the loss oflaryngeals can also be applied to B (256). As opposed to this, Martinet (1950 and 1974) and M's (see M 1977 and above cited references) theory regarding the loss of strong consonants in initial position does not appear to him to be applicable to the hydronymic language, since in this latter we find, on the one hand, in initial and medial position strong and weak plosives and, on the other, a great quantity of items beginning with a V­and voiced and voiceless C- in the same position.

To begin with, it is useful to clarify that while it is the vowel a which predominates in AE and not the vowel e as in IE -as is maintained by V and all other scholars- in B, contrary to what V appears to believe, there do not seem to be noticeable quantitative or distributional differ-ences between the different vowels and even less between these two 89

vowels in particular. The e appears repeatedly in verbal and nominal flexion (it is even the epenthetic V in declension) and in derivations, as also in multiple roots, whether in initial, medial or theme final position. Comparison on this point between AE, on the one hand, and modern B (or reconstructed PB), on the other, fails disastrously. Leaving till later the question of the final -a, and postponing the statistics on -a- to an-other moment, we will say a little about a-. V calculates (244)54 45% entries in a- in the set included in KR's hydronymic lists and -as will be remembered- close to 17% "quite frequent" in B, i.e. in the RS Vo-

cabulary of 1596 prepared by Gorostiaga (!).55 But even from this number -quite modest in comparison with that established for AE- we have

54 Even so, K accuses him of seriously altering the data and, in consequence, the statistics; cf. footnote 11 above. VIL maintains that the phenomenon in question is an anachronism and not an innovation (1996: 103-104) and claims that the existence of a as distinct from o, especially in the roots, which are less susceptible to alteration or adaptation by later languages, acts as a kind of "fingerprint" for the identification of the hydronymic language. In his chapter on the vowels (idem. 184-195), he defends, for typological and comparative reasons, a vocalic framework for old IE consisting only of a/e/i/u (with e open and a a back vowel; see also VIL 1993b.

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

to subtract56 those corresponding to ha- in those dialects which have re­tained aspiration. According to my statistics (cf. L 1996a ), out of a total of 160 entries we would be left with 123 in Gorostiaga's Vocabulario after the suppression of these 3 7, so reducing the percentage from 17% to 13%.

V does not indicate to us the percentage of e- (except that it occupies four pages as against five for a-), but according to my calculations (and leaving aside also entries corresponding to he- in conservative dialects) we would be left with 130 items, which gives a final percentage total which is slightly superior even to that for a- itself. If instead of a corpus so limited and inappropriate we opt for a dictionary such as Sarasola (1984-1995), we find 90 pages for a- (1-90, 11.4% of a total of 814 pages) and 70 (8.5%) for e-. Besides, apart from a possible progressive tiredness on the part of the author, we have to take into account that there is probably a greater number of borrowing in a- than in e_57 and the co­piousness of e- in grammatical particles and old verbs (all of these would,

55 Does this choice of resorting to Gorostiaga 1953, totally strange in the context of B 90 lexico-statistics, have anything to do with what, for the moment, and leaving its formali­

zation for another moment, I will call 'T's comparative theorem" (or "Bongo-Bongo"): cf. "I have chosen Hungarian merely because, to my knowledge, no one has ever previously tried to relate it specifically to B [ ... ],because I happen to have a large Hungarian-English dictionary handy, and because I do not suffer from the inconvenient handicap of knowing anything about the history of Hungarian. My list of sixty-five B-Hungarian resemblances is rather longer than some of those I have seen presented in defence of other proposed links, but it took me somewhat less than four hours to assemble" (T 1997: 412; the italics are mine). On the other hand, it must be recognised that a text which is so important for the history (and protohistory) of the B language such as RS is not all that accurate from a philological point of view; M in his review (1953a) said all that needs to be said about Gorostiaga's vocabulary; the later Soto-Michelena surpassed it especially in gross errors; more recently, see L 1996a; I must here express my desire that the disgraceful, rather than blurred, facsimil which accompanies the text will be the last of its kind among the publications of the Royal Academy ofthe Basque Language [see now L 2010b]. 56 If we do not deny the evidence that h- also existed at an early date in western speech as was pointed out by M (we need only look at his Textos arcaicos vascos [1964b] and cast a glance at the medieval section and believe, as V (cf. §3.6), that aspiration is in free variation with (i) in the dialects in which it is maintained. I cannot understand why V does not follow M in this, nor what basis he has for affirming that in the dialects in which aspiration is maintained, it is frequently in free variation; of course, the reason is far too obvious if we keep certain IE facts in mind, but I cannot see anything in B which could possibly justify this affirmation [see now L 2008d, 2009c, 2010a, 2012d on the etymo­logical nature of the aspiration in B].

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

in principle, belong to this group; cf. T 1995b). In addition, the fact that d- occupies 20 pages (2.4%),!- 11 (1.3%), k- 36 (4.4%), m- 42.5 (5.2%) and p- 32 (3.9%) shows clearly that this dictionary reflects a state of the language which is very different from that which can be assumed for PB, Common B, or even Ancient B. Compared with these statistics we find that h- occupies 55 pages (virtually all of them filled with patrimonial terms), n- 18 (2.2%, the same as fort-!) s- 33 (4%, including safari and superbiotasun) and z- forty two ( 5.1% ). Other vowels work out at i- 4 7.5 (5.8%), o- 34 (4.1 %) and u- 18 (2.2%).

For the whole set of vowels V calculates somewhat more than 50% of the entries in RS; in Sarasola (1984-95) this set occupies 260 pages, approxi­mately 32%, but the evolution of the language from the 15th and 16th centuries to the present is not necessarily the only convincing explanation for this difference. Azkue's dictionary (1905-06), as is well-known (cf. M 1970), tries to avoid- as distinct from Sarasola's- both old and recent borrowings, yet presents, in spite of that, statistics which are very similar to Sarasola's for a- and e-: 120 pages (11.4% of a total of 1042 pages) for the former and 95 (9 .1%) for the latter. However, if we take into ac-count that Azk:ue unites under a- and e- both ha- and he- (and in general 91

in V- all h V-), it is possible that we should reduce these statistics by about one fifth of the entries: as we have seen previously, on analysing a western text such as RS, it would be more realistic to calculate approximately 9% for a- and 6.5% for e- respectively, and some 360 pages, 34.6% of the total for V-, for historically attested B up to the beginning of the twentieth century. These statistics are not very different from those previously ob-tained in Sarasola ( 1984-95); compare the numbers and proportions pre-sented above with the following from Azkue (1905-06): d- 15 pages (1,4%),.f 5 (0,5%), k- 58 (5,5%), m- 58 (id.),p- 36 (3,4%), n- 20 (2,4%), s- 45 (5,5%), t- 38 (3,6%) and z- 97 (11,8%). Figures for other vowels are i- (including}-) 79 (9,7%), o- 62 (7,6%) and u- 47 (5,7%).

Azkue's dictionary has also been used by T (1997: 172-173) to study the phonotactics of B. In his opinion, "It is obvious that vowel-initial

As against existentzialismo, exodo, exorzista, etc., I believe there are more abade-, abant-, etc.; I am not aware at the moment, however, of a means for clarifYing this question with greater precision. A great deal still remains to be done in lexicography and in historical lexicology. Unfortunately, although this and other questions are the concern of philologists, it does not seem to be the case that linguists can ignore them without endangering greatly their analyses.

92

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

lexical items are extraordinarily frequent in B", and he calculates the frequency to be nearer to 50% than to 40%. However, as he himself admits, "this includes those items which begin with h in the aspirating dialects" and besides he eliminates the 160 pages corresponding top-, t-, k-, d- and r- since his entries can only be borrowings. This last decision though seemingly correct is not really so: recall the existence of kalte 'harm',pekorotz 'cow dung',piztu 'recover' and some others (however reduced the number may be; the existence of a late rule which devoiced a voiced initial position in the presence of a medial voiceless sound seems established beyond any doubt) not to mention a copious supply of ono­matopoeic terms; on the other hand and if the argument were really to carry through we would have to ask ourselves if all the terms correspond­ing to vowel initial entries are patrimonial terms. If they are not, and it is very doubtful that any such affirmation can be made, even if we cannot give precise figures for the number of borrowings present, and since it is not licit either, just for the sake of calculation, to leave out without further ado initial voiceless sounds -nor to accept without previous analysis that all initial voiced plosives occur only in patrimonial terms- then it seems to me that the figures given above (close to 35% for V-, 65% for C-) are more fully justified than those given by T for late PB (=M 1957a andFHV).

For the rest, I am afraid that a negative answer must be given to V's question as to whether anything of note happens with initial vowels, and especially with a-, in those dialects in which h- is not retained (in so far as I know nobody has presented correspondences for a : he or a : eh); no examples of compensatory or other phenomena have been cited in dialects with loss of h-, etc. What is more, V can see in theM's Fonetica hist6rica vasca that the different phonetic laws apply equally to -h VC and to -VC in dialects with aspiration, and to -VC chains, whether these proceed from *-hVC or from *-VC, in dialects without aspiration. There is not, therefore, any greater similarity than this between AE and B, in so far as global percentages of the vowel a are concerned, in so far as its origins and evolution are concerned, and in so far as its initial position is concerned. We will have to return to this later.

V assumes (248; see §2.18) that there could have been vowel harmony in AE, given that it was a suffixal-agglutinating language; in any case,

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

if it did exist at one time, it disappeared with IEisation and it seems that he is not prepared to adventure a somewhat similar proposal for B. He does not seem to be aware that Uhlenbeek (1947a: 65-66) did in fact propose its existence in B in a certain type of disyllabic root: adats 'chevelure', azkar 'fort, puissant', xahal 'veau', bele 'corbeau', eder 'beau', esker 'gratitude', bihi 'grain de ble', idi 'boeuf', zikin 'sale', odol 'sang', otso 'loup', buru 'tete', sudur 'nez', etc. (see now L 2005, 2008b, 2009b, 20lla).58

3.5 The standard reconstruction of the phonological system of PB pro­posed by M (1957a, 1977) is only too well known: Old B had a vowel system consisting of five oral vowels (the nasal vowels of some dialects are the historic result of the disappearance of intervocalic nasals) with three degrees of openness, and with no trace of any opposition based on quantity. The historic semi-consonants, both /j/ and /w/ are easily ex­plained as contextual derivations from front (/i, ei) or back vowels (/o, ui). Sonants present a somewhat peculiar system with opposition between weak and strong: n/N, r/R, l/L, which are neutralized in initial position in favour of the weak sounds and in final position in favour of the strong. There was no labial nasal, /m/, and the presence of /r/ was prohibited in the absolute initial position of words. There were at least two orders of sibilants depending on the place of articulation, with two modes of ar­ticulation: a fricative and affricate dental sibilant and another fricative and affricate dorsa-alveolar sibilant. The distribution of fricatives and affricates is realized analogously to that of the sonants, that is to say, fricatives in initial position and affricates in final position, the possibility

58 In what immediately follows this he discusses at length the ultimate reason for the af­finities between these languages, being inclined here also (cf L 1997b, 1998a and 2008b) to favour, with Boas "intimate acculturation contacts" as against the model of a mother tongue applied by Sapir and Kroeber. As is well known, TO on several occasions (1950, 1954a, for example) contemplated the possibility that B might be genetically related at different levels to a number of different linguistic families, especially Caucasian and Hamitic-Semitic. - On the supposed polygenetic origin of B (Biscayan as against other dialects), see L 1986 and 2012a where relevant anterior bibliography is discussed, among others M 1964a and 1981. The fact that TO's (1959b) reply did not make for any progress in this sense called for a further criticism of Uhlenbeck ... perhaps without takiug other questions into consideration relative to the delimitation of the root in Band the reconstruction of PB, but which, on the other hand, make up almost the totality of his work; cf. L 1995, later work and §3.8.

93

94

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

of opposition existing only in intervocalic positions. The C-system had a tensed correlation, with the presence of strong and weak consonants in labials, dentals and velars, with one empty member in the set, that corre­sponding to /pi: _/b; t/d; klg.

Certain typological coincidences between this model proposed for Old B and Iberian are also well known and, in the absence of more conclusive evidence, were outlined and explained by M as being attributable to areal phenomena: the lack of /p/ and /m/, the absence of initial r-, the existence of two classes of sibilants, showing signs of neutralization in contexts similar to those ofB, etc. (see M 1979, G 1993, De Hoz 2001, L 2012h). As regards the canonical form of lexical morphemes, he postulated clearly a disyllabic structure for Iberian bases, with the possibility of something similar for Old B, especially in view of the Aquitanian documentation. In so far as the syllabic structure is concerned, in his opinion (C) V (W) (R) (S) (T) seemed to be suitable for one and the other. In another work (M 1977: 485), he clarified two questions which have a certain relevance in this respect: (1) (C) could not be just any consonant, especially in initial position (so, for example, -as we have indicated- this position was prohibited for r, R, the affricates ts, tz, and the voiceless plosives in general, as well as for d, with the sole exception -in patrimonial or non-hypocoristic forms- of the finite forms of the verb and (2) it is ex­tremely improbable that there existed at any one time examples of syl­lables in which all the appositional members were filled.

While our ideas about the essential phonological structure of PB have not varied in the past few decades, an attempt has been made in L 1995, and later work on the analysis of the root in B and PB, to show the pos­sibility of going beyond the standard reconstruction (cf. T 1997) of PB phonology proposed by M in a series of outstanding papers in the 1950's (1950, 1951, 1957a) and 1959 thesis[= M 1961/1977].59 Taking as basis the analysis of the IE root in Iverson and Salmons (1992) and concen­trating on the analysis of the patrimoniallexis -less studied and more difficult, although it contains more information on ancient phonology and morphology- we have observed in this work that the Old B and PB

59 In L 20 12b I have dealt with the importance of the analysis of borrowings in recon­struction and in particular in that of PB; on this topic, readers should consult M 1957b, 1964a and 1974.

----~------------ ------

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

syllable were more restrictive (CVC) than M had proposed (CVWRST), and that the impossibility of-T in the coda, together with Old PB mono­syllabicism (as compared with later polysyllabicism), account for the in­existence -heretofore unnoticed- of simple patrimonial roots **TVTV

in late PB.6° Contrary to what is claimed by V (242, §2.12), there are no reasons for assuming the existence of 6 plosives in PB: bilabial, strong p is clearly missing and dental, weak d also poses serious problems, at least in initial position. Neither m (cf. T 1996 and 1997) nor glides exist (cf. M 1977 vs. Hualde 1989) though V has to assume that they did in AE.

Leaving for another occasion Hualde's analysis of the voiced/voiceless

opposition in plosives, I prefer to limit myself to the classical recon­

struction by M which also covers sonants and sibilants and in which the

primary phonological opposition is strong/weak. Previously (§3.2), I have

affirmed my belief in the existence of this opposition in PB -anterior,

clearly, to the age of Latin and contact with it- though not perhaps in

Common B (which M 1981 dates around the 5th and 6th centuries a.d. [see now L 2012a]) or in Old B, which is still more recent, and in which

the evolution strong > voiceless, weak > voiced had already taken place, 95

together with initial spirantisation and the consequent elimination of plo-sives in that position. Thus we find T- : t- > Q- (> h-10-) : d-. It is still

later when we find initial voiceless sounds, whether through non-trans­

phonologised borrowing, or through the application of a rule of regressive

assimilation of the interior voiceless sound or for other reasons. 61

6° Clear exceptions to the CVC Old PB root can be found in the grammatical forms (eta 'and', edo 'or', ala disjunctive 'or', etc.) and among pronouns; this fact, however, is only of relative importance in so far as it is repeated systematically in language families such as IE (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1984), Semitic (Moscati 1964: 188) and Austronesian (Gonda 1949/1951-52): see L 1998a, 2005 and 20lla. 61 Good phonologist that he is, V realizes the backward step involved in T's 1985 pro­posal for geminate /simple as compared with previous proposals by Martinet and M (to which T 1997: 124ff. returns); in effect, in that system, the problem of initial vowels was much more difficult to solve and from this V hopes to get more support for his theory: "One drawback ofT's proposal (see the preceding note) in comparison with Martinet's is that it implies no immediate explanation for the great number of vowel-initial words. It is, however, compatible with my suggestion that the latter phenomenon owes its prehistoric origin not to the loss of fortis plosives but to the loss of laryngeals, which in turn is in harmony with the fact that Old B did not have either phonemic glottal consonants H (/h/, 1?1, etc.) or any of the mellow, non-sibilant fricatives F (If/, /q/, le;/, lxl, /cl, etc.), so that

96

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

3.6 In so far as I can see, V is completely "original" (in the worst sense!) when he affirms that the majority of B dialects do not have h and that in those in which it does exist, it is generally in free variation with zero (255). Even if, in bygone stages ofits evolution, B lackedfand B,just as AE and Iberian did, there can be no doubt that h is documented in B throughout the whole area in which the language was spoken during the Middle Ages and that it was one of the differentiating features of this language, distinguishing it from others in its neighbourhood (for example, Iberian) in ancient times: recall the Lerga inscription (cf. M 1962-1963). According to M (1977: 208), h is etymological in the following cases "when it is the continuation of (1) an old PB h, (2) Lat. f, with or without Romanic mediation, (3) an old intervocalic -n-, ( 4) old voiceless or strong plosives in initial position".62 [For more etymological sources of /hi see L 20 12d.] In V' s opinion, "The explanation of the great number of vocalic onsets by laringeal loss seems to be viable for B. This solution would work both for B and for the toponymic language of Central Europe." According to V's calculations, vowels in initial position account for more than half the set ofB words (cf. above §§3.3-3.4), which seems to him noteworthy given the existence of 12 consonants in competition with them. From this follows the "necessity" of extending to B also the exis­tence of initiallaryngeals which were later lost, leaving as a consequence the high percentage of initial vowels which, in his opinion, exist. 63 But

a prehistoric development H > null or F > H > null could be the reason for the numerous vocalic onsets" (1994: 274, n. 73). See note 67 on another problem with T 1985. 62 Cf. "In spite of this, the presence of h in the Lerga inscription and precisely following sonants permits us to choose Aquitanian without hesitation ( ... ) the aha group, and in general groups formed by two identical vowels separated by h ( ... ) is typically Aqui­tanian. More precisely, and in spite of Schuchardt, it is B or Common B" (M 1962-63: 452). It seems to me strange that V, who is familiar with and uses M 1977 (and other works of his) has not noticed M's analysis and does not mention it at all; without doubt the objective of searching at all costs for similarities between B and AE must have in­fluenced him. On the existence of a kind of Grassmann's law for Old B which would block the existence of various hh in the same word, see the beginning of §3.4. 63 The statistics for V- and C- which are obtained for a language such as Maori in Cook Islands (cf. Buse & Taring a 1996) is as follows: a- 91, e- 13, i- 22, o- 20, u- 16, ng- 11, k- 68, m- 57, n-13,p-78, r- 32, t- 126, v- 14, giving a total of211 V- and353 C-pages. It should be borne in mind that Maori makes a distinction between long and short in the five vowels, from which it follows that ten vowels as opposed to nine consonants compete for initial position, in spite of which the percentage of C- is far superior to that of V-

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

V's laryngeal proposal is -apart from its partiality- unnecessary, use­

less, unfalsifiable and inefficacious. On the other hand, we saw above that the percentage of vowels in initial position could in reality be nearer

to a third than to a half of the entries, which makes the need for an ex­planation much less evident, or at least an explanation in the sense of V. For the rest, the number of consonants competing with vowels in this position was not twelve, as is affirmed by this author; T (1997: 173) re­duces this number by half: b, g, z, s, l and n, momentarily forgetting h

(which, in its turn, could be the inheritor of the two strong consonants proposed for an anterior stage).64 This being the case, five vowels, be­

tween 35% and 40%, and seven, perhaps eight consonants, from 60% to 65% do not look like numbers which a manifest imbalance in favour of

vowels, but rather the opposite.65 On the other hand, as T (1997: 180) points out, there is no phonetic trace oflaryngeals at all in B, either in in­itial position or in any other; let us remember (cf. VIL 1996: 215) that at least in Armenian attempts have been made to find traces of the (then) new glottal system. Bearing in mind that in B (as opposed to IE) they ap­pear not to have had any function or consequence before their supposed

disappearance, one could say that V only raises the question of their exis­tence, given that all material parallel with AE is lost due to the enormous

differences regarding a- between the two languages, in order to make them disappear again, just as they disappeared, in his opinion, in AE. 3.7 The hydronymic language and modern B would have the same voiced and voiceless doublets (aspirants also in AE) *Part-an-I*Bard-an-,

*Kam-al/Gam-ali*Ham-allike B bart(h)a/partha (257). In addition to

(62.6%/37.4% respectively). Should we assume a loss of laryngeals here also? It is a

pity that V did not notice the high proportion for a- in this language (much more than in

B though not so much as in EA) as compared with the scarcity of e-, which is even below the proportion for u-. The proportion of consonants (which seem to be almost the mirror image of PB!) deters us from searching for an explicative model in this language, at

least in so far as B is concerned. 64 Later (1997: §3.18 "The problem of the initial vowels" and here §3.4) there is a dis­

cussion of Martinet's and M's hypothesis regarding the loss of strong sounds through

aspiration. 65 Incidentally, in Futuna-Aniwa (cf. Capell1984), although there are five vowels and six­

teen consonants, the proportion of initial consonants is far superior to the 0- which they

occupy in the inventory: a- 5, e- 1, i- 2, o- 1, u- 1, b- 2,f 19, g- 1, h- 1, k- 10, l- 1, m- 11,

n- IO,p-7, r- 6, s- 9, t- 16, v- 3, w- 2, x- 4,y- 1; id est: V- 11 (9,5 %), C- 104 (90,5%).

97

98

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

the rest of the rules and restrictions to the inventory of the hydronymic language, V added that the voiceless character of plosive groups formed part of the same. If he had taken into account known facts of (modem) B, he might have done without the imposition of such a rule in AE for such a weak external parallel. In fact, I do not believe that the assimilation of the plosive groups to voiceless sounds took place in PB as he proposes, for the simple reason that, at that stage of the language, these consonantal groups did not exist (nor, in all likelihood, did voiced and voiceless pho­nemes). Not at least if, as is proposed in L 1995, the root was monosyl­labic and CVT was not permitted, nor, therefore (C)VTTV(C) in com­position or derivation. Not even the addition of supposed radical velar determiners (236-237, §2.7, see below),66 would achieve a -TT- se­quence, but at most -RT-. It is possible that the sonant +plosive groups assimilated, but perhaps not as voiceless or voiced, as V proposes but as strong or weak, since this was the phonological distinction in both classes.67 As regards the voiced and voiceless doublets (even triplets with an aspirated variant) which V believes he has found in the hydronymic language, PB and modem B do not seem to fall into line, given what we have already seen: such phenomena did not come into existence until very late and even in more recenttimes they seem to be found especially in borrowings.

66 K seems to realise that this was not possible in B: cf. "Either V's Finnish inventory (233) or what he more seriously argues for, the B one (255-262) should generate suf­fixes that do not occur, e.g. surely a voiced -g- (260) if the hydronyrnic language were seriously related to B on his account of it. Additional weaknesses of his argument are that he does not present (or point the reader to) a whole picture of the suffixal inventory of any one language, nor of the group he argues for as a whole, nor does he discuss what in his favoured language-group the suffixes actually observed in the river-names would mean. Nor of course does his hypothesis yield any explications for observed fre­quencies such as those furnished by IE participles (p. 82 above)" (1996: Ill, n. 74). 67 This would diminish for Old PB one of the difficulties that T saw (1985: 887-888) for the fortis/lenis model, i.e. the assimilation of groups of fortis and lenis plosive con­sonants, even if the same would be the case for sibilants. In reality almost all the possible examples come from hypothetical losses of vowels (errepide, bikain, etc.) in composition; this rule is already effectively attested in medieval documentation but not on the other hand in Aquitanian where forms such as Cisonbonis, Anderexo, etc. (not giza-, andera-, etc.) show that weakening with neutralization or loss of the second syllable vowel in the initial element did not take place, though this was later a regular process in the history of B. See also n. 67 for another problem in T 1985.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-6ASQUE

3.8 V68 admits an important difference in the syllabic structure of B and AE, even when the former also shares the same severe restrictions as AE with regard to syllable contacts: whereas the toponymic language allowed from one to three consonants in initial position, the oldest B allows only one initial C. Though he suggests that this could well be a prehistoric innovation in B, he admits that this diminishes the phonological corre­spondence between the two languages. The structure of PB syllables and roots can only with difficulty be adapted to that assumed by V for AE and it is logical that he should, at least in part, be aware of this (235-236 §2.6). Liquids, muta cum liquida, glides, C + w (at times all together) in initial position or in other contexts have left no trace whatsoever in ancient stages of the language and it does not seem sufficient or licit to suppose that this lack could be attributed to a prehistoric innovation of B69

• Neither does PB appear to have allowed simply any consonant at all in initial position, although V does not notice this: apart from r-, R-and the affricates tz-, ts-, d- could not, until much later, occupy that position (see §3.5).

68 See the Postscript in so far as V 1998 in this and other regards is concerned. 69 We might remark in passing that the difference between the syllabic (and root) structure ofB and K.artv is even greater; cf. §3.12 and G & L 2001, L 1998a, 1998b and in L 2008b, 2009b, 20 !la. Truku < turco, treku < terco and various others show that a kind of rule inversion is documented late which produces groups which were not only previously for­bidden but do not even come from the original language of the borrowing. In the Waunana language (Columbian Chaco, cf. Loewen 1970), even though, in the oldest strata of Spanish loanwords, Tr groups with epenthetic vowels are eliminated (tarap trampa, neg;Uro negro, etc.) or with metathesis < cruz, tarpis < trapiche, etc.), in more recent borrowings these are retained (triiis < trincha, prestaa- < prestar, etc.). Philipine languages (cf. Quilis 1980) are even closer to what happened in the history ofB: "g) en general, les groupes consonantiques tautosyllabiques n'existent pas dans les langues philippines. Aussi les emprunts espagnols qui possedent de tels groupes developpent-ils une voyelle svarabhaetique ou perdent la consonne non liquide: esp. cruz > tag., ceb. huros 'croix', esp. fragata > ceb. paragata 'fregate', esp. brazo > tag. baraso 'bras', etc. Le meme phenomene se produit pour les groupes /cons. -'- 1/ en tagal: esp. plaza > tag. palasa 'place', esp. plato >tag. palata 'assiette', esp. pliegues >tag. pilegues 'pli', etc. Le cebuan a ete la premiere langue qui rut entree en contact avec l'espagnol. Pour cette raison, croyons-nous, il a bien mieux assimile ces groupes consonantiques; il est meme arrive a en creer d'autres dans les emprunts ou ils n'existaient pas: esp. calavera > ceb. klabera 'tete de mort', esp. garbanzo > ceb. grab(mso 'pois chiche', esp. tirabuz6n > ceb. tribuson 'tire-bouchon' (et aussi en tagal)" (93-94).

99

100

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

As opposed to what V assumes for some late phase of AE, there has not been any syncope either in PB or in Common B, and it is only at a very late stage that we find atra 'leave', ab re 'animal', zren 'they were', etc. forms which are confined to Navarre (and the initial examples by no means found within its whole extension); forms of the first person, er­gative inflection in -da (diada 'I will give you', etc.) are still found in RS (1596, cf. L 1996a). The syllabic schema proposed by M covers all those documented in any historical dialect and not only these but also others which are not attested in B or are clearly secondary. This is the case of those few which terminate in plosives (-T), such as dut 'I have [ ... ] it', hart 'last night' or host 'five', all of which can be explained, ei­ther as very recent borrowings (blok, tiket, etc.), expressive words (zut 'stand up', et 'watch out', ok egin 'vomit'), secondary variants in com­position (erret- 'royal' from errege 'king', ot- from ogi 'bread, wheat') or the result of regular phonetic changes (dut < *duda, hart 'last night' < *bard< barda, etc).70 All of this shows that the schema proposed is too powerful and should be substituted by one which is more restrictive than (C)V(W)(R)(S). M himself pointed out certain restrictions in the consonants which could occupy (C) in word initial position and in the sibilants which could occupy (S). We have discovered further limitations in this sense and in order to explain them it is previously necessary to propose a structure for the morpheme or, to put it differently, for the root in PB, since they are directly derived from this latter.

In L 1995 and later work I have tried to follow a line of explanation for these restrictions in the framework of a theory of the root combined, in its turn, with a theory of the syllable and, especially, with the licensing of the coda. All languages have syllables of the form CV-; some also have closed syllables eve, and among these languages there are those which allow any consonant whatsoever to occupy either initial or final position, and there are those which impose restrictions on the appearance of the same in the coda but not in the onset. In all those cases in which re­strictions are placed on the sonority of the consonants which can appear

70 Even though the examples given are of final syllables, neither do we find examples of tautosyllabic intramorphemic combinations in historic B: -Vnt-, -Vnk-, -Vnp-, -Vnd-, -Vng-, -Vnb-, -VIt-, -Vlk-, -Vlp-, -Vld-, -Vlg-, -Vlb-, -VRt-, -VRk-, -VRp-, -VRd-, -VRg-, -VRb-, nor, in consequence do we believe that they should be postulated for PB.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

in the coda, these limitations always favour those consonants which are highest on the hierarchy of sonority (V > glide > liquid > nasal > frica­tive >plosive). Plosives, being the lowest on the scale, are also, universal­ly, the first candidates to be excluded from the syllabic coda position in all languages which place a minimum requirement on sonority in that position. If we search for a similar explanation in the case of B, we can then postulate that the absence of syllables of the form **-T is due to the following restriction:

The maximum syllabic structure licensed in late Proto-B was CV(W)

(RIS/ 1

As against Azkue's intuition that the ancient root was in essence mono­

syllabic, Lafon (1950) and Uhlenbeck (1947a/b) have outlined a multi­form B root; alongside an ancient verbal root which was largely mono­

syllabic, though also showing certain disyllabic forms, they have pro­vided us with a descriptive classification of nominal B roots which is much more varied: largely disyllabic, though with a considerable num­ber of monosyllables and, to a lesser extent, polysyllables; for all of these there would, besides, be various subtypes in so far as phonemic structure is concerned. The most complete list of B roots is to be found

in Uhlenbeck (1947b):72 in this there is an abundance of monosyllabic roots, as well as disyllabic, while polysyllables are rare. Among the di­syllables we find (h)abe 'column', (h)aga 'stick', (h)agin 'tooth', abar

'branch', apur 'piece', egur 'firewood', eten 'fracture', atal 'part', aldi

'time', ardi 'sheep', arte 'until', etc., but it is curious to see that we can deduce the following phonological principle, previously undefined in the literature, to the best of my knowledge:

In PE two plosives could not occur in the same morpheme; the schema

**TVTV did not, therefore, exist (cf. L 1995 [and now L 2005 and 2008b]).

71 As against L 1995 I no longer believe in the tautomorphemic existence of -RS [ sonorant + sibilant], but believe rather that the -S in these cases corresponded to some suffix or desinence; cf. n. 80. 72 Uhlenbeck made out this classification as a means of getting at the deepest levels of nominal and verbal roots in the W. Pyrenees and so differentiate them from others such as Caucasian, Hamitic, etc. which could presumably be integrated in the B lexis.

101

102

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

In effect, we have no documentary evidence for the roots **baba (we do have the borrowing for 'French bean, broad bean', from Lat.faba), **babe, **babi, **babo, **babu, nor **bada (distinct from ba-da 'it is/ if it is'), **bade, **badi, **bado, **badu (distinct from ba-du 'it has/if it has'), nor **baga, **bage, **bagi, **bago, **bagu. Neither have we any roots of the contrary series with first a velar consonant and a labial or dental following: *gaba, *gada, ni *gaga. The few examples presenting two plosives are bide 'road' and bider 'turn, time' (derived sense related to 'road'), bage 'without', begi 'eye', biga 'two' and some of certain etymology: bada 'then' is a fossilization of the verbal conditional form ba-da 'if it is like that', gabe 'without' proceeds from bage by metathe­sis while bage itself comes from *bade-ge, many others being clear and provable borrowings: bake 'peace', bago < Lat. fagus 'beech' ... just as bide (cf. via de) and bid er themselves. 73 If, as M points out (1963: 50), historic anomalies are useful in reconstruction especially in so far as they can be explained on the basis of anterior conditions and, on the other hand, hypotheses are justified in so far as they are capable of clarifying them, 74 it is evident that the structure of the B root morpheme presents us with such a number of historic irregularities that their analysis and eventual explanation must lead us to epochs with regular forms which are of great antiquity. The alternative option of limiting ourselves to an enumeration of root classes and, at most, the reduction of certain mani­festly recent types to other known classes may be less risky and laborious; in fact, we would not be the first to accept a canonically multiple form for this language. 75 In later work, I believe that I have shown, nevertheless, that this option would be as unproductive and erroneous for the recon­struction of anterior phases of the B language as it was in similar cases involving the history of other much better known language families.

73 In others such as the already-mentioned biga 'two', begi 'eye' it is usually to postulate, at least since Uhlenbeck, a simpler morphemic structure: b(i)- 'two', which forms part of the names of body parts which have two members and constituted perhaps old duals: b-eso 'arm', b-elarri 'ear' and perhaps mihi < *b-ini 'tongue', etc. On reduplicates go-go 'soul, spirit', go-gor 'hard', etc. seen. 78 and the text. 74 The example chosen to illustrate this fact is the triumph of the laryngeal theory. 75 So, for example, Moscati 1964 as against Diakonoff 1970, 1975, etc., the latter -as Bomhard 1990 and 1991 and many others in all linguistic families- favouring a stricter (and more reduced) canonical form, which would have been retained in the Hamitic side of the family; cf. Bohas 1997, Lipinski 1997 and L 1998a.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

The reconstruction of nominal roots led to the postulation of monosyl­labic schemas such as those outlined above, but also to an infinity of di­syllables and quite a few trisyllables;76 M's classical proposals (some anterior even) for 'wine', 'fish' or 'lady' were *ardano, *arrani and andere, with a structure comparable to that of trisyllables which came from borrowings, *baLena > balea or errege. Many of these recon­structions do not allow a posterior analysis into simpler elements, which would be closer to what is assumed to be the form of the PB root. How­ever, we are sometimes more fortunate, since modem or old documen­tation itself allows us to advance in the analysis. So, we get the impres­sion that the protoform *m-rani(> arrai, arrain) is a participle with the suffix which has the same sense and structure as Sp. pes ea do 'fish'. 77

Naturally, it is impossible to explain, here and now, each and every B word of more than one syllable and reduce them to roots and monosyl­labic suffixes. In any case, apart from the fact that the endeavour would be both irrelevant and outlandish, a given number of examples of new etymologies will support the general principle which has been formulated on the basis of structural requirements. In ok(h)er, 'naughty, twisted', (p)uzker 'fart', anker 'cruel' and ezker 'left', which have the same ter­mination in -Cer, it seems reasonable to isolate an element *kh-/ger 'bad', which would seem well suited to the meanings of these words. In

76 An indication, if not a confirmation that the PB root was monosyllabic has always been available in the context of the verb, especially in the inflection of the synthetic forms of the B verb. Forms such as dator 'he comes', dakar 'he brings' or dabil 'he walks' have a d(a) as a mark of the present (undetermined aspect, actually; cf. Trask 1977 and L 2008a vs. De Rijk 1992, G6mez & Sainz 1995) with the roots -tor-, -kar-, -bil-, and with no restrictions, incidentally, on the presence of voiceless plosives root initially. The infinitive forms and especially the participle are formed by means of the prefix e­and the suffixes-nor -i: (previously belonging to one class; cf. T 1990): *eoan > joan

etorri 'come', ekarri 'bring', ibili (< e-bil-i) 'walk' [see now L 2006c, 2011a/b, in progress-hie]. 77 M already realized that segmentation procedures were all that was available to throw light on the formation of autoctonous B words and he practised the technique success­fully in a paper on the suffix -din which is present in a series of adjectives (cf. M 1971): berdin 'equal', urdin 'greyish, blue', gordin 'raw', etc. More recently, de Rijk (1992) seems to regard -dun, coming from the verbal root and not from the third person relative, as was thought heretofore, to enter into the formation of adjectives such as bizardun 'bearded', zaldun 'gentleman', etc.; see L in progress-e for some gramaticali­zations including *din 'to come' > ABLATIVE and 'adjectival suffix'

103

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

other cases such as aurre 'before, in front of', atze 'behind, at the back of', the -e proceeds -as M ( 1971) pointed out- from a false cut on the basis of the locative form: aurrean, atzean, as in lurrean from luR: cf. Bisc. gane 'high, -ness' (with *-ain > -an, cf. laban 'slippery, slip') as against gain in all other dialects, or for eastern B Parise, Akize 'Dax' ( < aquis [tarbellicis }), all explicable as forms based on ganean, ganetik, ganeko, Parisen, Parisetik, Akizen, Akizetik, etc.

Some roots (*bel, *bur, *gur, *ger, *han) and a few preffixes (*gi-, *la-, *sa-) 78 discovered for the first time, or identified in items in which they had not previously been recognised, demonstrate, in our opinion, the in­terest of the new proposal and oblige us to extend the analysis to a wider area and to elaborate in the future a theory of word formation in Old PB: we believe, for example, that partial reduplication to the left (odol 'blood' < *do-dol, eder 'beautiful' < *de-der, adar 'horn' < *da-dar, etc.f9 must form part of it. We also believe that pre-PB almost certainly lacked true prefixes, as the oldest phases of historic B still do,80 and that those few forms which appear to be prefixes in PB or ancient PB are no

104 more than ancient roots, the meanings of which have been so diffused that they become "expressive terms", as has happened in other linguistic families (cf. work included in Hinton et al. ( eds.) 1994). The suffixes, with the exception of certain desinences or inflections we sometimes seem to catch a glimpse of (-bo in alba 'side, flank', orpo 'heel', lepo 'neck, back'; -u in barr-ulbarr-en 'interior or inferior part' and perhaps

78 Versus earlier work, I think that these and some others are prefixes and no roots, be­cause they have'nt morphological autonomy, because they occur only root-left and be­cause there are not root truncation (*-C > -o) but affixes without root canonical structure (CVC). For typological consequences of this new analysis see L 2005, 2006a, 20lla. 79 On the other hand arnasa 'respiration' can be explained as a redupliced form from the base *hats: *hats-nats > *arnats > arnas > arnase > arnasa, in the same way as ohoin 'thief' or gogor 'hard'. On reduplication see L 1995, where it is claimed that the inclusion in this morphological process, among other reasons, makes all the less likely a possible Celtic origin for adar 'horn' [see L 2002a, 2008b]. 80 See L 1997a, 2009b and G & L 2001 for an attempt to periodicise the history of the B language; T 1997 attributes to the second grade reconstruction initiated in L 1995 an antiquity which is far greater than that attributed to the standard protolanguage of M, though he is unable be any more precise than this. G & L 2001 refer to a number of problems that arise in reconstruction due to a uchronic conception of the (proto-)lan­guage; see now L 2008b.

r ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

urru-n!-ti 'far'), do not appear to have been very abundant in that phase of the language, just as they were not either in Aquitanian.

With regard to final hiatuses in -a (V 238, cf. §2.8), this is recent in B (as recent as the article, naturally) and in any case, contrary to what happens in AE, we do not find more hiatuses in -ia, -ua than in -ea, or -oa. Neither do we believe that there was a preference for final position vowels in PB, where modem hiatuses would have originated (presently studied by Gaminde & Hualde 1997 in the footsteps of De Rijk 1970) and almost certainly there were abundant final position consonants in -r (hur 'water'), -R (huR 'hazelnut'), -l (hil 'to die'), -n (lan 'work'), -tz (hotz 'cold'), -ts (huts 'empty'), i.e. no plosive consonants, sibilant fricatives, -h or -m, but only vibrants, laterals, nasals and sibilant affricates.81

3.9 V assumes that in AE, as in PB, according to Martinet, stress was initial, though it is posterior in the multiplicity of systems, some tonal, some accentual (contrastive or predictable), which we find in modem B (257-258; see Hualde 1995 and later 1997b, which V could not have access to). It is possible that this may have been the case, but the only thing that Martinet showed was that this was plausible or, rather, desir­able, since, in PB the autonomy of the word was greater than in later stages of the language, as is required by the different results of the evo­lution of plosives in initial and medial position;82 from this Martinet de­rives the idea of a demarcative stress, which it seems to him should have been placed in the position referred to.

Stress in the second position, as M explained (1957-1958: 220 and later work), following Welsh models, would have the advantage of providing an almost direct explanation for the distribution of aspiration, since this (and not the first) is the final syllable on which aspiration is permitted. In an effort to reconcile his theory with Martinet's, M assumed that his own theory corresponded to a later phase of the language while that of Martinet (which explained the distribution of the consonants) belonged

81 It seems that final groups are not permitted; the only one documented apart from apocopes, etc. is -RS in hortz. hartz, bortz which may come from a CVR root with a desinence or suffix which can also be found in bel-tz and possibly (cf. L 1998a) in hor-tz

('canine' < hor 'dog') and bor-tz 'five' < 'round'?, cf. en-bar 'trunk', zil-bor 'stomach', etc. Seen. 102 on hartz. 82 Which is what he studies in some detail; for the extension of the model to sibilants and sonants see M 1957a.

105

106

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

to an earlier phase, with a change of the stress position between one and the other, partly induced by abundant Latin borrowings with penultimate stress. But Martinet's objective, to derive on the basis of a limiting stress an autonomous phonology for the themes, which would be superior to that documented in later periods, could equally be achieved with second (or fifth) syllable stress, this being the final position of the theme. Besides, with the roots in second elements(= second syllables) in non-monosyl­labic themes, with suffixes (whether stressed or not) not abounding, with composition being the principal source for new words (cf. L 1995, 1998a and G & L 2001), it seems preferable to have stress in final position. The acknowledged uncertainty and weakness of word-initial position (cf. M 1957a, 1977) and the inexistence of consonantal groups in initial position would also favour this approach. 83 [See now Elordieta 2011 a-b, Igartua 2002 and Martinez 2004; cf. L 2005, 2006a, 2009d, 20lla for Old PB: with less suffixes and with some prefixes, initial reduplication and maybe an ulterior final> initial stress drift]. 3.10 We cannot but agree with V when he affirms that modem B has no ablaut, in contrast with the vocalic models found in the toponomy studied (257-259). 84 In so far as I know, no proofs have been put for­ward that it existed in PB either, though it has been posited for AE (see

83 Miller (1959-60) shows that in Acoma (New Mexico) consonantal groups are sup­pressed and the plosives in Sp. borrowings becomes aspirated (=voiceless) before un­stressed vowels and non-aspirated (= voiced) before stressed vowels caj6n > kahuna. capit6.n > kapidd.na, toro > du.ru, keso > ge.su (I reproduce Miller's transliteration which, as is obvious, is not phonetic. This latter phenomenon seems to be adequate for multiple Latin borrowings (bike, bake ... ) but not so the former (balea and not **phalea) and even less for patrimonial terms (gordin and not **khordin). I. Igartua suggests (with reference to Carenko 1975) that perhaps the structure that we find in Quechua may be nearer to the peculiarities of B aspiration: I) only one aspiration per word; 2) instability in laryngeal articulation (mobility) 3) functional concurrence between stress and aspiration; 4) restriction of aspiration to lexical morphemes. 84 It is perhaps useful to clarify that the interdialectal contrasts referred to by V (ile/ule 'hair, wool', irtenlurten 'leave', itxi/utzi 'abandon', etc.) are scarce (about a dozen) and do not always coincide in so far as geographical distribution is concerned; on the other hand, if we take a diphthong as point of departure, whether primary or secondary (cf. the second case in M 1977) and taking into account the existence of variants such as elle, eile; erten, irten; eutzi (without an asterisk in Old Guip.), eitzi, etc., there does not seem to be anything wrong with M's etymologies, which do not require either an inter­mediate vowel or vowel alternations in PB or later [see now L 2012a and 2012d].

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

n. 42 inK). Contrary to what V assumes for roots and suffixes in AE (cf. §2.3), the vowels e and o are not secondary in (P)B; they have an ample distribution in roots (zezen 'bull', aker 'he-goat', elur 'snow', zer 'what?', la 'sleep, to sleep', zoro 'mad', hogei 'twenty', beso 'arm', etc.), inflection (gen. and dat. sing. and pl. as well as past in the verb), and derivation (-le. -ro, -to, -kor, -koi, etc.) and do not enter into alter­nation with other vowels, nor is there reason to assume that previously they had been variants of others. As V himself acknowledges: "There exists a number of cross-dialectal root doublets, but they are best ex­plained by sound changes, e.g. the i/u and e/o doublets treated by M in his chapter 'Labializaci6n y deslabializaci6n' (1977: 73-85)" (258). 3.11 Independently of the fact that, in the known periods of its history, B is an agglutinating language, though not necessarily so previous to that [see now L 2005, 2006a, etc.], we can ask whether this may be due, in any way, or whether it is related to the reversible character of the order of suffixes which V attributes to AE and to other agglutinating languages.85

In any case we do find in B what Lafitte called "surdeclinaison" (-ki-n in the associative, -re-n in the genitive, -ti-ka in the prosecutive, -re-an in the archaic ablative [cf. L 1986 and the references cited there]) but 107 no inverse orders, either in inflection **-n-ki, **-n-re, **-ka-ti, **-an-re, etc., or in derivation, **-zun-ki (cf. -ki-zun), **-n-ki (cf. -ki-n), **-zun-tar (cf. -tar-zun ), etc. As regards the B toponymic suffixes -ika, -aka, -aga, which V segments as -ik + -a, -ak + -a, -ag + -a (originally, according to him, combinations of a locative suffix terminating in velar + article), the suffixes of modem B are neither -C-, nor in the majority of cases are they prevocalic, as against what V (§2.2) assumes for nor do they appear to have had these characteristics in previous stages of the language [In recent work (L 2012b-d, among others) I showed that -aga < *har-ga 'DEMONST. 3 g. + LOC. suff.', similar to adin 'similar, equal' < *har-din 'arrive there' from M and others (-ago 'more than' < *har-go{n} 'go over', etc.). See note 118 about ogi.): -(r)i, -(r)e, -tik < -ti + -ka, -rik < -(r)i+ -ka, 86 -ko, -n, -kor, -tasun < -tar + -zun, etc. V's

85 This, as we have seen, is explicitly refuted by K; seen. 19 above and for further detail K 96-97. 86 -rantz, which seems to be one of the few exceptions, would not be so if we accept the proposal ofR. G6mez (< -ra + -ontz, cf. Fr. vers < Lat. verto), which converts it into an old combination of suffix + root. [Nevertheless, ontzi 'receptacle' seems a loan from Latin (concea), yet it is preferable to analyse it as originated from -ra

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

analyses do not then appear to be acceptable nor does Bertoldi's hypoth­esis to segment root + plural suffix in -ar appear to have much chances of success, although he was more interested in the continuation of the Iberian tradition than in anything else, in cases such as lizar 'frene', gas­tigar 'erable', nigar 'tear', gilar, ilhar 'bruyere', kapar, gabar 'brous­sailles', sapar 'touffe d'arbrisseaux sauvages ou epineux', legar 'gra­vier, pierrailles', etc. (Bertoldi 1931 and 1937: 165, cf. T 1997: 368, who appears to extend the list) no matter how clear the plural sense may be in some cases: cf. below on the codas that would be derived from such a segmentation. 87

3.12 In previous work (L 1998b) I have suggested that, with the analysis ofthe morphophonology of the root, linguistic families such as Kartvelian appear even more distant and irreconcilable genetically with B. It is un­necessary to say that, by definition, it is impossible to demonstrate a non­genetic relation (cf. Hamp 1998: 15, in answer to Salmons and Joseph 1998: 6), from which it follows that it is the "believer", as M would say, who has to supply the proofs and these have to be of such a kind as to close all doors on any doubt or coincidence. Having said this, it will be

108 clear that if, previously, the correct and strict utilisation of the compara­tive method did not favour the hypothesis of a primitive B-Kartv union, the comparative study of the root in both makes it even more unlikely. 88

Assuming, with Harris (1990), that the proofs of the supposed genetic

87 On the AE and IE side of this question see above and K's n. 43 cited here inn. 20 (and text). T (1997: 367) comments "Second, none of the roots or suffixes listed by V for Old European looks like anything in B, save (inevitably!) for the root *Is-, which V of course wants to identifY with Azkue's putative B root *iz- 'water', discussed and dismissed as a phantasm in Ch. 5. Third, a sizeable number of the roots identified by V have forms which would have been impossible in PB: Drava-, Kara-, Pala-, and others with im­permissible initial plosives; Vara-, Visa- and many others with initial v- [ ... ] and a large number of roots with initial clusters of two and even three consonants". See here n. 18 about his IE explanation for AE roots and suffixes. - On the root *iz-, which is men­tioned by V, Jordan 1998 (with bibliography) has recently proposed to identify *iz- in iz (Viz, Guip) 'large rush', izaitze (Lab) 'high tide', izaka (Lab) 'drain' and BN-Lab 'irri­gation drain', izaro 'island', izingura (and variants) (Bisc.) 'swamp', aintzira (and vari­ants) (Guip, Lab) 'lake', iztoki (Bisc.) 'swamp, bog', izpazter (Bisc.) 'corner of the sea', izpindola 'current of a river', izpura 'running water', iztai (BN) 'downhill, valley', isol (BN, S) 'shower, heavy downpour', istun 'channel, strait', itsaso 'sea, bed of reeds' and various toponymic doublets such as Isuela/Jzuela (Rioja), Isbor/Izbor (Granada), !scar (Valladolid)/Izcar (Cordoba), Iso/Iza (Lugo ), Isena (Huesca)/Isona (Lerida)/Izana (So­ria) Izcala, Izcalina (Salamanca), etc., with the PaleoEuropean root *eis-/ois-/is-.

r

~--------~----~-------··---------·--·--~---------

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

relation or linguistic alliance between IE and Kartv are not at all suffi­cient -for example, in what relates to the comparison of the morphemic structure of these language families- we believe that we have established that the (structural and material) differences between PB and Kartv roots are even greater than those existing between IE and Kartv, with which we can affirm that the remote possibility of finding proofs for any historic relation between B and these languages diminishes even further. 89

Following M's research (1957a, 1977) we possessed a reconstruction of the PB phonological system and lexis which was reliable and secure; on the other hand, nothing of this kind occurred in the Caucasus: rather, the progressive development of B-Caucasian historical linguistics has shown that while there were certain Caucasian languages which were genetically related to one another (the Kartv languages, for example), consensus on the existence and, where relevant, the reconstruction of the proto-languages corresponding to other groups such as the north-eastern or the north-western was very inferior and the possibility of tracing them all back to one only family very unlikely; even less so the likelihood of ever arriving at **PB-Caucasian (cf. TO 1950: 17, 1959a: 33; M 1968; cf. also Klimov 1991).90 In spite of the efforts ofLafon (v.g. 1951-1952) 109

and others to find morphological and phonological correspondences be-tween B and the language at the opposite end of the Mediterranean,91

88 With this in mind and before going on to the analysis of B and Kartv roots, what we are drawing attention to here is the explicative power of the analysis of the root, not only for theoretical reasons but by means of examples such as that which shows the rela­tionship between PNord-Yuki and Wappo through restrictions common to both Californian '"'u:!:'u"l:>'" (cf. Elmendorf 1997). 89 It is evident (cf. M 1963 or 1964a) that only by means of material proofs (and not ex­elusively formal) can we prove the supposed genetic relationship between two or more languages; i.e. by means of homologies which are based on strict correspondences and not by means of simple analogies, whether or not the cognates are superficially similar or not or whether they are as dissimilar the Armenian example (erku) which Meillet (1925, etc.) popularised. In spite of this, however, and together with these proofs and without pretending in any way to replace them, morphology (beginning with such super­ficial questions as morphemic distribution) has proved its worth, even in families such as lE and Semitic, and has shown the help it can provide in achieving the objective. As Bomhard explains in one of his multiple works: "It is necessary to be quite clear con-

my assumptions regarding root structure patterning in Proto-Afroasiatic, be­cause the assumptions I have made here are critical to the viability of the lexical com­parisons I have made between Afroasiatic and the other language families considered in this paper" (1991: 58).

110

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

anyone familiar with and loyal to the comparative method, at least to a certain degree, can hardly admit that they succeeded in their enterprise, taking into account not only certain traps mentioned above92 but also the fundamental duty of all linguistic reconstruction: to illuminate the past of the languages on which it is built (cf. L 1998b and 2008b ).

For anyone who has studied the criticism to which M (1950) submit­ted the B-Caucasian etymological work of Bouda (see, inter alia, 1950) and others (see G & L 2001 about Braun 1998), the relevance of the lack of a theory of the PB root, on the part of those criticised, is evident. In effect, a multitude of unacceptable etymologies are not due solely to the analysis of alien elements as patrimonial terms, whether on the B or on the Caucasian side,93 or to the attempt to justify them by mean of ad

9° Cf. "en comparaciones que van miis allii de !as lenguas kartvelicas !as !eyes foneticas nos son, a priori, desconocidas, y por ello no tenemos criterios para poder diferenciar entre correspondencias surgidas hist6ricamente en lenguas emparentadas geneticamente y semejanzas fortuitas en lexemas de lenguas sin ningun parentesco. Cada comparaci6n genetica, por lo tanto, tiene que colocarse, en la medida de lo posible, en grupos de lenguas estrechamente emparentadas, para reconstruir, con ayuda de correspondencias foneticas regulares, lenguas madre no documentadas" (Schmidt 1989: 763). 91 A task which, on the other hand, was effected, perhaps to add an air of lightness to what was clearly an arduous task, first with one and then with another of the approximately forty Caucasian languages and selecting here and there from old (from Old Georgian least of all) or modern, general or markedly dialectal forms, even at times from forms which were simply non-existent. For details, apart from the works cited in the text, see Castafios 1979. 92 It was not without reason, though there are those who will feel uneasy, that M offered to balance out supposed B-Caucasian correspondences with others that were B-IE (as more than half a century ago Zylhar did with Nubian and German in reply to the B­Hamitic essays of Schuchardt), and thus showed up very clearly the weakness of any B­Caucasian construct and the methodology used in the attempt. For other similar "exper­iments" see T (1997) between Band Hungarian (the most "economical" without doubt) cited in n. 55; Igartua 1996b formulate certain criticisms of the "mass-comparison" practised by Greenberg (see 1963 and 1987 among others) and his followers (cf. Ruhlen 1994a!b ), a technique which never goes beyond and never differentiates itself from pure coincidence; see also Campbell 1988, 1997a, 1998a!b, McMahon & McMahon 1995 and other references cited in L 1997b. 93 To the Romanic terms pointed out by M in the work cited above and elsewhere should be added those which Vogt (1955), Schmidt (1989) and Klimov (1991) have pointed out in Kartv coming from lE (at various stages of development), Semitic and Altaic: "entre Ios estratos de prestamos que han actuado desde fuera sobre !as lenguas kartvelicas hay que citar sobre todo Ios prestamos iranios (iranio antiguo y moderno, asi como osetico),

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

hoc phonetic laws, whether because they were dealing with exceptions and not norms or because the context of a law has been changed. Together with these reasons (and on more than one occasion at the same time as these) M (1950: 440) accuses Bouda of effecting incorrect morphological analyses, or of simply leaving them unjustified, so as to favour a given etymology: for example, m-otz 'short, ugly' (< Spa. mocho) but ma-ts (cf. mahats 'grape') or i-rizi-gi (cf. i-ra-ze-ki 'to set fire to'). 94

Lafon demonstrated multiple morphological concordances between B and the Kartv languages: up to 35 in his 1951-1952 paper. Nevertheless, the author himself was aware that when it came to judging these concor­dances, nothing resembling a B-Caucasian morphological type existed, as opposed to what could be found in IE, Ural-Altaic, or Hamito-Semitic (Lafon 1951-1952: 92).95 As he himself acknowledges, neither the struc­ture nor the details are similar, some morphological elements occur in only one language and none of the correspondences is in any way con­clusive (1951-1952: 94). In spite of the fact that the author believes that "en tout cas, leur ensemble ne saurait etre un effet du hasard; il ne peut s'expliquer que par }'existence d'un lien de parente, par une comunaute de tradition", it has been shown that the morphological proofs of the supposed B-Caucasian relationship were as weak as those proposed in phonology, if not more so. If Lafon's remarks are not enough, M several times drew attention to the fact that, in general, all the grammatical marks (and very definitely those in Lafon's essay) are so brief that they leave

armenios, griegos, turcos, anibigos y rusos" (Schmidt 1989: 764). See also Charachidze 1986-87 and 1990-91, cited in L 1998b. 94 Cf. L 1996b for a criticism of an identical procedure in Iberian [about **KABE]. I will not deal here, in spite of its relevance to the problem cited in the text, with the question touched on by M when he rightly accused Bouda of regarding B as if it were the only language which instead of phonetic attrition suffered from exactly the opposite and so "Ios sonidos de una palabra vasca, por una especie de generaci6n espontanea, proliferan y se multiplican" (ibid.). Vogt also reproaches Bouda in the sense that "L'ana­lyse des mots, en radicaux et suffixes, est trop souvent faite ad hoc, pour les besoins de la cause, sans les explications susceptibles de la justifier" (1955: 334). All of this is re­lated to what Lass (1997) and others have called "the principle ofuniformitarism". 95 Citing M. Cohen, Lafon recognises that B-Kartv or B-Caucasian are very different cases: "La grande preuve de la parente des groupes chamito-semitiques, [ ... ]reside dans l'identite d'ensemble des systemes morphologiques, tant pour la structure generale que pour ]'aspect meme des eU~ments formatifs: beaucoup sont pareils a premiere vue, d'autres se ramenent facilement a la similitude" (1951-52: 92). See L 1998b.

111

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

too much room for coincidence; to this, for example, we can attribute the slight diachronic relevance of our finding a voiceless velar in the plurals of both Armenian and B.

The case would be very different if instead of simple desinences we were to find alternations or restrictions on the structure of the morphemes shared by the languages being compared; however, nothing of this kind is to be found in the work ofLafon and others. What is more, and leaving desinences aside now, Lafon's conception of the (P)B root does not seem to be correct. Nominals being more obscure and more difficult to separate than verbal prefixes and suffixes, Lafon proposes in his analysis to resort to comparison.96 However, the example which he proposes as the key­stone of his work on B roots does not support other supposed proofs of the relation between the two families, and show, as it should, that in both we find the same roots and morphemes with the same restrictions and combinations: on comparing B g-!kider, -ar 'handle' with Georgian Kid­"suspendre, saisir" (in Mingrelian "prendre dans sa main, saisir, se saisir de") and Svanian Ked- 'prendre' and, following Uhlenbeck, he proposes a suffix -ar, -er ("on peut penser qu'il en est ainsi dans le mot precedent

112 et que la racine est kid-, gid-", Lafon 1950: 307), we are left with a root with a final plosive (dental voiced ! ). This coda, which is impossible both in B syllables and roots does not constitute another proof of the morphemic analysis of (P)B being facilitated by the comparison with Kartv nor of the relation between the two families, but a clear example of the weakness of the whole theory.97 As will be seen in what follows,

96 In reality, between those suffixes which are still evident and productive and those which, at the other extreme, can only be noticed with external help, it would seem that there should remain others which we should be able to isolate by means of internal re­construction, a method to which Lafon does not attach sufficient importance; cf. L l997b, 2005 and 2008b. 97 From the works of this same author, Bouda 1950, which M had not yet seen when writing his critical work of the same year, may well be the most appropriate not only to get to know the methods but especially to see the consequences of the lack of a theory of the root in PB; we must not forget that the author points out that: "j'enfile ici les plus belles perles de mes observations qui ont etabli !'unite linguistique du groupe euscaro­caucasique et presente ce collier" (207). The said "pearls" contradict everything that we know about the segmentation and the ph ono tactics of B morphemes and roots; cf. a few chosen from among them: ih-i, eh-i 'facile', lab-ur 'court, bref', garb-i 'proper', e-rh-i 'doigt', oke-1, oke-la 'morceau, viande' (216), etc. To sum up, voiced and voiceless plosives in root final position, liquid or affricate sibilants in initial position, roots with-

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PRO TO-BASQUE

a large part of the criticism which, in their day, was merited by Bouda, Lafon and others for their arbitrary segmentations of B roots and mor­phemes and of the languages with which it was compared, as also for their disregard for B morphophonology and history, is, in our opinion, also applicable to the work of V in the morphology and phonology of B-AE. 3.13 It is not surprising that the author dedicates a great deal of atten­tion and space to an explication of the supposed abundance of -a in AE and in B, since this is crucial for his theory that AE is non-lE and that B is one of the various continuations and now the unique survivor of that linguistic family. From this follows also the coneatenation of original hypotheses and refutations of other theories (cf. §§3.3, 3.4 and 3.6). He begins with the claim that "[t]his B determiner -a seems to be very old", though no arguments are given to support this claim and in spite of the

fact that a number of scholars have compared it with a homophonous determiner in Berber (and have drawn a comparison between the two languages while they were at it). This comparison does not seem ac-ceptable to V, not only because the lexical comparisons seem to him 113

unconvincing but also because Berber, being an Afro-Asiatic language and closely related to Arabic, shares with this latter "the consistent post-specifYing word order which is, with the exception of the noun-adjective order of both languages, the exact mirror image ofB word order" (260).98

Not content with administering this apparent "proof' of the absence of a genetic relation, he goes on to say "there do not seem to exist cogent reasons for assuming an origin of the determiner -a within B itself' (ibid.). The determiner then would have been adopted from the hydro­nymic language, which, as we have pointed out above (§2.10), following V's arguments, already possessed it. Having got past this hurdle, he can now happily conclude:

out a vowel (sometimes all of it in the root itself), sonants in the desinences ... as well as, at least in so far as B is concerned, modem forms or forms which are poorly docu­mented, obvious borrowings, aberrant or non-justified segmentations etc. Morvan (1997) also uses final plosives in his PB-Uralic; see G & L 2001. 98 On the article see in n. 29 the contrary opinion of K, -in favour ofT, who holds the classical theory on the subject- and further on some observations from the viewpoint of the historical morphology of B.; see now Manterola 2006, 2009b.

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

If we attribute the same method of forming definite noun phrases to the language of the Old European toponymy, we would have an immediate explanation for the observation that so many Central European toponyms terminate in -a. They would have been adopted by speakers of IE languages, which at the time did not have articles, with no appreciation of their definite character (260).99

To close this pretty circle, the speakers of IE languages would later iden­tify this -a with the nominative singular of the first declension, from which is derived the abundance of "feminine" hydronyms in Germanic languages, all belonging to the first declension of the languages of that family. 100 To this, V adds the possibility of explaining multiple Celtic names in -a and the use of the article in modem Central European topo­nyms (260-261). It is strange, to say the least, that V cannot content himself with T's explanations of the B origin of "distal demonstrative (h)a(r)-" and that he should ignore the remainder of T's perfectly standard and rationally based observations, for example, the importance of the western forms such as gizon a '(that/the) man' on the origin of -au and -ok). Even more striking, however, is the following: In my opinion Dr. Trask opens an interesting perspective on the way the determiner -a

may have originated before the B language began being recorded [ ... ]; and the path of 114 development he outlines is indeed a universal one for the development of determiners.

However, I do no think his argument proves that the determiner -a developed from the demonstrative (h)a(r)- within the historical B language; it is still possible that this de­velopment occurred in prehistoric B (at the stage which I call Paleo-B and from which not only B developed but also the language of the Old European toponymy, acording to my theory), and it is possible that -a originated from another demonstrative. Since this is a disputed matter within Bascology, I prefer not to deviate from the notion that B -a is a determiner of great antiquity (276).

I can find absolutely no evidence to support the claim that this consti­tutes "a disputed matter within Bascology", so V must provide a more tangible philological argument than mere suppositions and personal preferences. That -a corresponds to the article in AE (cf. §2.9) is some-

99 In V's n. 83 (276) we are reminded that this is quite common, with the example of the agglutinating Arab article anteposed in borrowings from that language (alcohol, al­gebra, alcoba, etc.) into Sp. and other languages. We should add perhaps the existence of cases of the loss of -a through confusion with the article, especially in the speech of central dialects (am bat 'a mother', eliz bat 'a church', gauz bat 'a house', anai bat 'a brother'), as well as cases of agglutination and deglutition of prepositions and Latino­Romanic prefixes (cf. debekatu < impedicatu, etc.). 10° K, on the contrary, proposes that these hydronyms should be analysed as IE adjec­tives of the first declension (referring, for example, to aqua); see here n. 30.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

thing that should be demonstrated with arguments which are internal to the hydronymic language itself; in any case, the identity of that -a with the definite article in Post-Aquitanian B is anything but obvious. We know without any doubt that this article is a modem development in B, arising at the same time as the Romanic article (or perhaps somewhat later) and also, to a great extent, as the Germanic. There is not a trace of it in Aquitanian onomastics (cf. M 1954, G 1984) and evident signs in the early centuries of the Middle Ages that it was starting to spread very slowly from very sparse beginnings. On the other hand, Old B (not PB, from which it was almost certainly lacking) had not only one article but several (among them -au, -or[z], which are still documented in the ear­liest texts), from which it follows that the (medieval) generalisation of -a

in toponomy should be related to its extension at the cost of the re­mainder, and of @, in the non-toponymic morphology of the language [see a survey in Azkarate & Altuna 2001 and Manterola 2009b] .101

3.14a V believes that he has found in B suffixes and radicals more ap­propriate etymologies for certain AE terms than can be found in other anterior proposals based on IE. Some of these are lexical etymologies which the author has dealt with in previous work (see below). Others, however, are the etymologies of suffixes which are scarcer and more difficult, given the conditions in which the comparison must be made

101 For Sauvageot (1929: 88-89) there is no doubt that the article does not date baek to the common Germanic epoch but that "il est issu d'un developpment qui ne s'est accompli qu'au cours de l'histoire de chaeun des dialectes germaniques apres leur differentiation respective" (remember the three articles in Nordic) and even that "des

importants attestent le caractere recent de eette evolution". Alvar & Pottier (1983: llOff., following a classic work by Lapesa) talk of "casos evidentes" of the article in the Iberian Peninsula only from the seventh century onwards, with reference to the coetaneous development of Christianity). Croft (1993: 220) points out that "[t]:ypo­loglcal and historical research ( ... ) has indicated that the sequence of articles states for the evolution of definite articles is as follows: no articles> anaphoric demonstratives > definite articles". According to Company (1991: 402-24) "La generalizaci6n del articulo no alcanz6 a estos [i.e., abstract and concrete nouns] sustantivos por igual ni a todas !as funciones oracionales con la misma fuerza. Se trata de ur1 cambio sintactico gradual que "'"

0""''';.. en tres etapas yen el cualla funci6n de sujeto es la iniciadora del cambio: (a)

primero se introdujo en voces genericas hmnanas; esta fase esta pnicticamente concluida para fines del s. XIII; (b) posteriormente alcanz6 a sustantivos de referenda unica en la segunda mitad del XIV y (c) por ultimo -s. XV- se extendi6 a abstractos y de masa, zona en la cual sigue habiendo variaci6n en el espafiol de hoy" (from p. 405).

115

116

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

(function unknown, phonetic form not always clear, ... ). He wishes to call attention to two correspondences which are very close, one whose function in toponymy must be clarified and another whose function is known to us (V 259). He analyses (260) the B toponymic suffixes -ika, -aka, -aga as ik + -a, ak + -a, ag + -a (i.e. originally combinations of a locative, velar-final suffix+ article). This segmentation allows us, in his opinion, to make the first part correspond with the toponymic suffixes -ic-, -ac-, -iac-, which are especially productive in Gallic and Celtic (261). Rejecting the previous lE explanation, he believes that Celtic took these suffixes as borrowings from AE together with many terms which contained them. In certain areas of Germanic they would also have survived, while in others they adopted a nasalised variant (-ink-, -unk-, -ank-) of the original which is retained by B (ibid.). 102 We have already seen, however, (§3.5) that -*T was inexistent in PB and there is no trace of suffixes with this structure. 3.14b R. Lass (1997: 212ff.) has proposed this work ofV's as a "model for how to do this kind of prehistory", i.e. for research in "etymologia ex silentio" or more precisely from substrata and adstrata of disappeared languages. According to Lass, V has succeeded in identifying, by means of "detailed and judicious philological work", strata of AE, which con­stitute the origin of multiple words with no lE etymology, with an ancient "Vasconic" family, the only survivor of which is the B language. And he adds: The test of any such claim is whether it can yield etymological connections of some degree of solidity (if not, given the enormous time-depths involved, Neogrammarian elegance). In this case I think it does (Lass 1997: 212).

As an example of etymologies in Irish and Greek which were formerly problematic and which have been clarified by V the following words, said to contain the "Vase." root *andera, 103 are cited: Irl. aindir, ainder

102 "The derivative suffixes he mainly invokes are usually seen as being at least to some extent borrowed from Celtic in which they do have a convincing internal history" (K 98, n. 45, with reference to Russell). 103 For specific reference to this term and on the Celtic influence on B in general see G 1987 and the references cited there, as well as Fleuriot 1991; to the difficulties pointed out by G in considering hartz 'bear' as an lE term borrowed by B. should be added the possibility that it was segmented in Old B as har-tz (cf. notes 80 and 102). Leaving this problem aside for the moment, see T (1997: 367~368) on the "Vase. Etymology" of Miinchen with m-! or Adams High-European-B terms with k!

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

'young woman', Gr. Kassimdra (<Vase. *kast-andera 'fountain woman', containing Vase. *kast-a 'mountain spring'), Gr. Andromeda (<Vase. *andera + *meda 'whole/healthy (young) woman'= 'virgin'), Gr. Andro­

makhe (< *andera + mak-a 'blissful woman', connected with Lat. mactus

'praised, celebrated'), Gr. anthrene 'forest bee, wasp', anthredon 'hornet' (< B andere 'queen bee'; now see L 2008b). Other possible "Vase." ele­ments would include the suffix *-aba which appears in ancestral terms in modem B such as a(a)saba 'ancestor', osaba 'uncle', izeba 'aunt', which V identifies with Gr. pe- enpeiskos 'descendant, son' and in anthropos

'man', 'descendant of a woman' and perhaps in Kuklops ( < *kukula-aba

'son of the mountain' and not kukl-ops 'one with a circular eye'). Finally, and also corresponding to the "Vase. Connection", (from *sal 'water') we find hydronymic terms such as Salmacis, Sala, Salmana, Salona,

Salus and other "problematic lE terms such as Lat. salum, Gr. salos

'tossing of the waves', Irl. sal 'sea', lat. saliva 'saliva', salmo 'salmon', salar 'trout', Gr. halus 'river', whereby, combining this latter root with the former, we get the etymology of Gr. salamandra: < *sal(a) 'water' + the roots in B am( a) 'mother' + and(e)ra, thus = 'water-woman', originally 'water-mother"'. 117

3.14c In V 1997, apart from these "funambulistic exercises" (to use

Magni's 1998 term), it is proposed that silabur and its Germanic and

Balto-Slavic variants are derived from B zil(h)ar 'silver' (882), and that izotz 'frost, ice' is derived from iz- 'water' + hotz 'cold' (it being "hard to

determine" whether it was directly adopted as common Germanic *isaz

[883]). It is also proposed that *plousa 'stone lab' and *plisa 'smooth,

plane' are the origins of B lauza, lisa and not the Latin forms (which would have been derived from PB [883-884]), and that andera is ety­

mologically related to handi 'large, big' (supposedly from *grandi-,

from which he derives Lat. grandis) so that *(gr)andera 'Highness'

would have been derived from *(gr)ande-era [885-886]. Another pro­

posal is that Gr. makar 'blissful' also reflects a borrowing from Vase.

*mak-ar (with an assumed B adjectival suffix [887]), and that Gr. sala­

mandra shows two typically "Vasconic" features, that is, the abundance of the vowel a (which the author demonstrated in work dating from

1994 and a peculiar word structure, especially if we reconstruct it as *salamandVra, after which, evidently, he can establish the Vase. mor­phemes *sal- 'water', ama 'mother', andera 'woman' (888-890 and

118

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

note), which would be proven with the parallel in ur-andra 'water-lady', the name of the salamander in three towns in Biscay. Unfortunately, not everybody shares Lass's optimism regarding the etymological labours of V; Magni, in his review of Lass's book, doubts that and he even be­lieves that: In fondo questo arcano (e immenso!) sostrato vasconico non merita piu indulgenza del nostratico di cui Lass sospettava nelle pagine precedenti: le somiglianze sono solo feno­tipiche, e poco felici [ ... ]. E sara davvero solo mitologia l'isolamento del basco?104 Se questi sono esempi di etimologia ex silentio, meglio il silenzio (ibid.).

The etymologies proposed cannot be said to be evident, nor do they have the advantages of philological rigour that Lass attributes to them. So, for example, and to begin with V's final "proof", it would be preferable to take a variant in u(h/g)- (cf. Ugarriza, u[h}alde, u[h}arte, etc.) ifwe are to take it that the ur compound has a certain antiquity. The existence of initial plosive + liquid groups (*grandi, *grandera, *prost) in Vase.

104 This answers the conclusion to Lass's "analysis": "This work is very much in pro­gress, and I am not claiming that these are necessarily 'correct' etymologies. What is important though is they represent an attempt not to give up in the face of the obscurity presented by immense antiquity, but to look in places that others have generally not looked in. It is after all part of our mythology that B is (however irritatingly, and how­ever peculiarly connected with almost everything else in the world by scholars who like hypertaxa) an isolate. Well, it still is in V's picture (or could be), but that itself is not relevant. What does count is that even if nobody knows the ancestry of B, it and its family (since presumably all isolates are relics of once larger families which simply can't be reconstructed because of antiquity or loss of data) can be argued to be part of a larger and later picture, and to have left behind traces that not only support the family, but cast some light on problems in other families. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this. We must remember that for a long time it was not clear that Armenian, Celtic or Albanian were really lE, but hard slog and imagination established them uncontro­versially. There may be more history than we think lying about in apparent mysteries, and it's a very useful exercise to go out on a limb and look for it" (Lass 1997: 213-214).- See T 1995a, 1997 and later work on the "isolation" ofB, answering -among others- works by Bengtson, who seems to be worried and even saddened by this cir­cumstance, which does not look as if it is going to change soon. It is hardly necessary to say that this sadness has no more interest and bears no more weight than the glee of those who prefer to continue with the feeling of being "an only child"; the motives which moved professional comparativists in developed linguistic families were very different. M confessed one time to being "a comparativist out of work" and even while feeling gratitude for the interest in finding work for us, who knows if we will be able to exercise this profession (and vocation) until we retire, without seeing ourselves meriting total discredit, even in disciplines and traditions with standards (or should I say gullets) which balk at nothing. Cf. the already cited article by Hamp 1998.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

is not supported by any kind of positive evidence in the B patrimonial lexis, while arguing against it, on the other hand, is the systematic elimi­nation of such groups in the evolution of Latin-Romanic borrowings; moreover, the concrete form of this elimination would not support V's etymologies either, since, as in multiple Amerindian and Asiatic lan­guages, 105 they are eliminated in modern B either by means of an anap­titic vowel (specifically the vowel present in the following syllable: cf. garau <granum, boronte <frontem ), 106 or through the loss of the initial plosive (laket <placet, loria < gloria), but never through substitution with h- (**hanu, **honte) or@-.

In so far as the last part of the equation is concerned, it is also im­probable or uneconomic as a hypothesis that andere or andera should have been derived from *grandi + -era, (without going into sociolin­guistic factors which would militate against the borrowing into Latin). A suffix -era "form, manner" in B is clearly posterior to the first docu­mentary evidence for the term in Aquitanian; in fact, it is difficult not to see that -era proceeds, in Romanic times, from Lat. -aria. Finally, no intra-B (or intra-Vase.) explanation has been given for zil(h)ar 'silver'. As for makar 'sleep', whatever the -ar may be (-gar 'flame'?; cf. ma­in ma-kur 'sloped, evil', makal 'weak, ill', etc.), it is hardly likely to have been ancient PB with that m- and a morpheme-final velar. 3.15 We have seen how V, throughout his work, makes various refer­ences to the typology of the B language which are intended to model his reconstruction of AE, and are clearly based on real or supposed features of the B language. If, on the one hand, we are told (V 258 and else­where) that what encouraged V to compare these two languages was the fact that (modem) B, together with its other similarities107 (254-255), is a suffixal-agglutinating and prespecifying language just as the AE topo-

105 Cf., for example, Henderson 1951 about the phonology of loan-words in some S-E Asian languages or the article by Quilis cited inn. 69; Casagrande (1954) establishes the following substitution table en Commanche borrowings from Sp.: r > ?,fr > p, rt > ht, rk > ?r, nt > r, dr > r (228); on the other hand, de Gorog (1962: 304) points out that "Initial consonantal clusters are unknown in native Finnish words, and consequently in loan words with consonantal clusters only the last phoneme of the cluster is normally retained. Thus in Finnish words of Germanic origin, r can come from any one of the following clusters in the Germanic languages: skr-, str-, spr-, kr-, tr-, pr-, gr-, br-, dr­andfr-". On this point Finnish maintains the situation in PUralic (cf. Decsy 1990: 26). 106 See Artiagoitia 1990 for a possible explanation based on changes in syllabification.

119

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

nymic language is, when analysed a la V, it is also evident to anyone who cares to read him that modem B has served as a model for the re­construction of AE and not as possible confirmatory evidence, due, for example to a common origin. In this way, V proposes an SOV and pre­determiner order both for EA and PB.

This may be reasonable (and has been proposed for modem B since De Rijk 1969) but it is not necessarily the case, demonstrated and given for all and every stage of the language, and V well knows that languages deviate in this sense and undergo typological change (cf. V 1974). I will not initiate here a discussion on the extremely difficult relation between reconstruction and typology (but see Fox 1995 or T 1996 for the relevant and very extensive bibliography) or on the correctness or otherwise of the standard typological analysis that is applied to the B language or to its deep diachronics. These topics are central to the present and future reconstruction of the language and I hope to dedicate at least part of my time to them in the future [see L 2006a, 2011 a], but not having at our disposal a clearly defined and reliable model of Ancient PB, with con-

120 trolled and productive etymological implications, I will restrict myself to a few observations which I believe may affect the foundations ofV's method of procedure.

It is does not seem as if the declensions or the B verb could have arisen from the night of time in the forms that are known to us historically, though I would not even trace back this origin to the last glaciation which V mentions, and despite the fact that it seems to me incredibly far, it is of course closer to us than the Nostratic, for which a time span of some fifteen millenniums anterior to our Era has been proposed (cf. Doerfer 1995, Vine 1991 and the papers edited in Salmons & Joseph 1998 and Renfrew & Nettle 1999). Specifically, arguments have been

107 So, for example, AE would, like B, have complex correspondences between inde­pendent roots and suffixes (frozen variants of the former), both being compounding languages. In AE is, av, ar, al, am, an and others would alternate as roots and suffixes, in the same way as what V proposes for B (258-9). But the supposed coincidence men­tioned in the text is more decisive than any other: V 232, 254-5, 258-9, cf. §2.5 and passim. In V 252-3 this structure is defended for AE on the basis of apparent evidence arising from its action as a substratum in Celtic; however, in n. 40 it can be seen that this proposal constitutes in the words of K "ignorance of actual changes in the history of e.g. Insular Celtic".

~---~~-~~------- ---

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

put forward in favour of a simpler nominal system, almost certainly with­out prefixes and with few suffixes, and with more active composition and reduplication (cf. L 1995 and 1998a). Nor does it seem as if all the elements of the verb are coeval (see among others G6mez & Sainz 1995). It is not clear, then, that the oldest stages of PB were not typologically quite different from the normal analysis for more recent stages of the language, and perhaps closer to the isolating than to the agglutinating type (cf. VIL 1996: 232 for IE [see now L 2006a, 201la for Old PB]).

To finish, a question occurs to me that I would like V to have an­swered, since, not being familiar with part of the present discussion on the reconstruction of PB morphosyntax, he himself ("typologically minded linguist", according to K) does not raise it. Specifically, if PB had had at some time a VOS or VSO word order, as has been proposed by G6mez (1994) and others, then, since "[l]anguages with dominant VSO order are always prepositional" (Greenberg's Univ. 3, cf. Croft 1993: 49), we would have to assume that B at that time (a very long time ago, obviously) was a prepositional language and had word-orders like Welsh and Berber including noun-adjective, noun-genitive, and 121

noun-determiner. In effect, if we admit the consistency of the orders (cf. Harris and Camp bell 1995: 195~ 196 for previous bibliography) and if what is historically attested seems to be108

Welsh Berber Greek II Sp. Fr. II German II Latin Ill Quechua Ill Basque Ill

Pr NA NG ND + + + + + + + + + +

+

+ + + + +

+ + +

+ (apud TO 1997: 99)

and assuming that the verb occupied initial position, then the order of morphemes that should be proposed for PB should be as follows:

Proto-Basque I Pr +

NA +

NG +

NDet NRel AuxV AdjSt + + + +

108 See De Rijk (1969) and TO (1977, 1981a/b); a very different treatment is given in Hidalgo 1995 and 1996; as T (1997: 364) reminds us, the verb initial order in Celtic has been attributed to the action of the substratum.

122

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

Possibly the "typological method" brings us to this and, even though he does not so much as cast a glance at it, the thousands of long years that V attributes to his reconstruction may be sufficient to generate the changes necessary to lead us to the historically known B language (docuit, potuit, ergo fecit). Nevertheless, and among other questions that should be raised, it occurs to me that the following could have a certain importance when it comes to deriving the historically attested language from a PB such as this: Where have all the prepositions gone?109

4 CONCLUSIONS

During the last few centuries, as is well-known (cf. M 1964a: 60, T 1997: 392ff. [see now L 2012f]), the B language has been compared with an in­finity of languages by a multitude of authors. Among these or, rather, among professional linguists, it seems to have been the Hamito-Semitic and the Caucasian languages which have attracted most attention. Un­fortunately, in the majority of these attempts, the desire and the insistence on fulfilling the objective of finding a family relationship for the B lan­guage have far exceeded respect for the principles and procedures of the comparative method: confused reasoning and confused typological and genetic conclusions, varied mixtures of patrimonial and borrowed terms (sometimes quite recent) in the different languages being compared, and, not least, morphemic segmentation and morphemic analyses which are prejudiced and erroneous, for example in the B-Caucasian comparison, all of these have followed one another relentlessly. Clearly, V does not follow the assumptions and principles reiterated explicitly by historical linguists and more recently by Hamp, though the fulfilment of these is necessary if any new proposal regarding genetic relationship or classi­fication into language families is to be judged acceptable for discussion

109 In L 2005 and 2006a some evidence for typological drift to agglutination in PB and Old B (100 BC to 1000 AC, cf. the chronology of V's Vase.) is assambled: old pre­positions and prefixes, raising of suffixes and postpositions in very recent stages of lan­guage, change from monosyllabism to dissyllabism, historical tendence to open syllables, adquisition of nasal vowels and univocalism in dissyllabics, new consonants, the raising of many adjectives (from old statives) and the ergative and so on]; this evidence looks for a reconstruction of PB a la Austroasiatic (cf. Donegan 1993, Donegan & Stampe 1983, 2004) [i.e., closer to the analythic nature ofProto-Munda and (Proto-)Monkhmer than it is to the late Munda structure, which is much closer to that of the historical Basque].

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

or even suggestive, i.e. worthy of being submitted to posterior testing and demonstration: (1) All raw data used must be checked and aceptable to expert philologists and field­

working linguists in the respective languages. All such data must be copied ac-curately from source publications by such experts. If there is ment or distrust surrounding any source materials, these reservations must be dis-cussed and clarified in specialized Fachliteratur where the attention of serious and informed scholarship can be attracted and summoned [ ... ].

(2) All such data must be segmented into elements that are considered to be reasonable and relevant by experts and native speakers of the respective languages[ ... ] Only acceptable elements may be used in the first order of argument. Where experts already disagree, the argument is thereby weakened to that extent (see [1) above). All such dissonance must be made clear in any presentation of the argument.

(3) In further orders of argument, only elements similarity established in prior explicit stages of comparison may be used. Au important inequality always intrudes here in any interesting problem. Absolute similarity of analysis is rarely encountered. Thus the basis of claimed similarity must always be made explicit. Most instances of such necessary clarification arise from combined divergence in chronology and grammatical rule change; this calls for exposition of the chronological spans and the intruding rule mechanisms. Such exposition constitutes the heart and most of the bulk of technical scholarly argument relevant to our whole question. Absence of such argument renders proof of an interesting problem suspect.

(4) [ ... ] 123 (5) In using such features and characteristics for comparison that establish genetic

equivalences, and hence familial relation and descent, we must strive to account for and assign to some successful equation every one of the features in each form; that is, we must strive to account for all discrimina whithout remainder. It is not

to give an accounting of but one portion, lea\ing the rest with no matching equivalence. We may call this principle that of total accountability. We strive to apply this to all stages and all elements analyzed for each such reconstructed stage.

(6) registering such equivalences quasi-exhaustively, we construct branching dia-grams of the relation of whole languages. These resemble construction commonly called trees. The entities so related are quasi-complete grannnars. The com­pleteness of the history which we reach depends upon our ability to interpolate with certainty or acceptable probability.

(7) [ ... ) (8) When quasi-exhaustive equivalences can no longer be found, we have reached the

end of the construction of a tree. Thus, a tree is bounded by our knowledge, i.e. our ignorance and/or ingenuity.

(9) [ ... ] (I 0) It is illicit to claim a genetic relation for a language or tree where such a tree relation

has not been shown. We do not have a usual name for not-doing or not-finding. (11) For such failures in tree-relation, two situations are true: a. claims of a familial

relatedness across these discontinuities are fruitless; b. the demonstration of further more inclusive tree relations among languages remains a task for the future. Non­relatedness has at present no known proof.

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

(12) The presentation of extensive illicit claims means a costly intrusion on the working time of careful scholars who must inspect the total data and detect flawed equiva­lence claims. The disassembly of illicit trees is a time-taking and potentially an­noying business which displaces useful scholarly work.

(13) The dissemination of such extended claims gravely misleads the public, a public not equipped to test for such technical failures. - With these principles in mind, hypotheses concerning possible related languages and language families can be judged (1998: 13-15).

I believe that I have shown that the reconstruction of AE carried out by V is in no way supported by the ideas that the author himself expresses regarding PB and the later evolution of the B language. 11° Contrary to what we would have hoped for, as distant disciples of Meillet and M, the theory or theories of V do not help us to resolve any known or unknown difficulty in the models of reconstruction at present in use, nor does it answer any questions raised in the bibliography around these two axes, nor does the author appear to be prepared to raise any on the basis of the real B data, or on the basis of more or less credible reconstructions which have been made from these, but rather, after suitable manipulation, 111

prefers to utilise whatever theoretical argument or data may prove use-124 ful for objectives which seem to me as grandiose as their foundations

are weak, at least in so far as PB is concerned [cf. now L 2008b]. As best suits him, V uses known phonological and lexical similarities

between Iberian and B but forgets, on the other hand, no less evident differences such as the existence of aspiration in the latter; he takes the B-Iberian hypothesis as given, against the judgement of specialists and the evidence of its null repercussion in deciphering Iberian [and the likewise null repercussion of the Iberian in the reconstruction of Proto-Basque; cf. 20 12h ]. 112 In the same way, he clearly manipulates the distribution of the phonemes of modem B so that the a and vowel-initial syllables will

110 On his analysis of AE, see the summary in §2 and especially n. 16 above. 111 ForK's identical opinion regarding the IE side ofV's work see notes 11 and 16-24 above. 112 In addition to the argument given in the relevant section the following passage from TO could be added: "[dos] de !as "razones en !as que se basa la afirmaci6n de que el vasco no es un descendiente del iberico son: 1 a El vasco no era la unica lengua de la Peninsula, sino que en esta se sefi.alan varios territorios lingiiisticos [ ... ] 3a Culturalmente no hay ningun motivo para suponer que Ios antiguos vascones fueran iberos o sufrieran una iberizaci6n: ni Ios arque6logos ni Ios antrop6logos han hallado hasta ahora ninguna raz6n para relacionar especialmente a Ios vascos con Ios iberos" (TO 1954a: 39).

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

appear to be superabundant, and so closer to the distribution which he

proposes for these in AE; he affirm that the vowels e and o are secondary in B without any further reason than the pretension we have already

pointed out. He "forgets" the inexistence of /p/, /m/ and /r-/ in PB, and affirms, against all the evidence of history and dialectology, that /hi is in free variation in modem B dialects in which it is retained. He postulates the loss of non-existent laryngeals which have left no trace, and voiced/ voiceless doublets which are clearly late and marginal, all of which fit very well into his peculiar manner of understanding the evolution of AE. His theory of the structure of the syllable, of roots and of words in An­

cient B is clearly inadequate and the use he makes of these so lax that it

permits him to justify any etymology whatsoever by means of B, and for which he grants himself the doubtful privilege of false segmentations, erroneous analyses of (late) B morphemes such as the article in -a and

ignorance of other data (for example relating to B toponymy. In short, V' s "typologically minded" -the words of K- reconstruction does not offer any new or effective solutions to the real problems of the (pre-) history of the B language or of AE, the only justification for any linguistic reconstruction of interest in this field.

Many Basques would probably be glad to belong to the only ethnia

which still survives from the very ancient Vasconic which V proposes, but it is no less true that, remembering linguistic situations which are very close to us in time (and therefore better known and more real) such

as those ofpre-Columbian America (cf. Campbelll997a) or pre-Roman Hispania (cf. TO 1950: 17, 1952: 88, 1959c: 33 and 1987: passim) [or North-Eurasia (cf. Janhunen 2008, 2009)], 113 there are many Basques also

113 ForT (1997: 364) "The idea that the invading IEs would have encountered a lin­guistically homogeneous Europe seems implausible in the extreme. Far more probably,

what the lndo-Europeans found was a patchwork of languages, large and small, some

related, some not, resulting from previous millennia of settlement, displacement and

language shift, just like anywhere else". And the example that he uses to argue in fa­

vour of this is precisely what we know about the linguistic situation in the pre-Roman Iberian Peninsula, where in addition to an old variety of B in the north, there were at

least (to cite only those for which we have written testimony) one non-lE language, not

related to former, in the south and east (Iberian), various lE languages (Greek, Celtic,

and perhaps others), a Semitic language (Carthaginian) and the mysterious Tartessian

language. To these should be added Lusitanian and AE (see VIL 1996 and the bibliog­raphy cited there) [see now De Hoz 2010-11].

125

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

who are resigned to imagining a more complex post-Ice Age Western Europe, with diverse languages and cultures; if the modest realization of our universal human destiny, characteristic of the Basques, were not suf­ficient, the linguistic impossibility of accepting V's proofs, methods and conclusions prevent us from following him in his journey into the Eu­ropean past. Not all vehicles (no matter how expensive they may be) are apt for all occasions and the analysis of AE which V proposes cannot transport us to earlier stages of the B language nor bring back to it either hitherto unknown members of its mvn family. However, few will disagree with VIL's conclusion that it is difficult to consider the Basques as par­venus in Western Europe: In so far as we know, the Basques did not come from anywhere. On the contrary, it is we Indo-Europeans who arrived in this corner of the world while they were already here. They form part of the Neolithic population of Spain. Only a part, since it is certain that the pre-IE population of Spain was not uniform but heterogeneous. Consequently, the historic horizon of their arrival in the Peninsula must be placed at least in the Neo­lithic.114 Whether they arrived here115 in the Neolithic or are descendants ofMesolithic populations we simply do not know. Neither do we know where they may have come from. Normally, in trying to find the answers to questions like these, it is a great help to

126 compare the language with others existent in other parts of the world. But, unfortunately, no help can be derived from this comparison in the case of B. None of the languages of the world show sufficient affmities with B to be able to claim a genetic relationship. Perhaps B does not have any relationships. Or perhaps those relationships exist but are now so distant that it is impossible to establish them. [ ... ] It is possible, even likely, that among the languages which occupied the physical space between B and the Caucasian

114 But cf. now VIL 2005: "El que Ios euskald1mes sean realmente el 'elemento primordial' de la poblaci6n en el Pais Vasco y Navarra, noes una verdad comprobada por datos po­sitivos independientes de la onomastica, ante Ios que esta tenga que inclinarse; y por el contrario, no es compatible con el conjunto de los (micos datos antiguos que hay a nuestra disposici6n: Ios onomasticos. i,Por que entonces se sigue (y presumiblemente se va a seguir) sosteniendo la euskeridad ancestral? Pues simplemente porque sigue vigente en­tre la mayoria de Ios estudiosos de estos temas el esquema crono16gico de la indoeuro­peizaci6n muy reciente de la peninsula Iberica en particular (hacia la mitad del II milenio a. C. como muy pronto) y de Europa en general( ... ) La afluencia masiva de euskaldunes [in Navarre and Iberian Peninsula] se produciria mas tarde, cuando el iberico estaba en trance de ser romanizado (primeros siglos del fmperio), o cuando ya habia dejado de existir (s. VII)" (VIL 2005: 512 and 514). 1

'5 As is evident, VfL is addressing a public which, to abbreviate, could be made to coin­

cide with the present-day native speakers of Hispanic Romance languages and his words would probably be equally valid if we were to include France, in spite of the fact that the author did not include here the language and peoples of Aquitania; cf. the already cited work ofLuchaire, M and G.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

languages, before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans, there were some languages which were genetically related to B. But we cannot demonstrate this and perhaps we will never be able to do so. The data which would have permitted it may well have been lost for ever (VIL 1991: 438 [Reproduced with additions in pages 478-480 of the 1996 edition]). 116

POSTSCRIPT:

ETYMOLOGY AND PHONOTACTICS

IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

Since the above was written, the reconstructive labours of Theo Venne­

mann have produced new fruits. I refer in particular to his "Etymology

and phonotactics: Latin grandis vs Basque handi 'big' and similar prob­

lems", published in the Journal of Indo-European Studies 26 (1998), 3

and 4, 345-390. In what follows I will limit myself to a few observations

on these new proposals of V to the degree in which they affect the re­

construction of PB, even though the questions raised are far from being

closed and will, without any doubt, require work and attention in the fu­

ture [see now L 2008b]. V's specific objective in this study is the analysis of a series of words

such as those that appear in the title and others which, according to him, 127

have not received a satisfactory etymology in IE and B linguistics:

Old Ir.fas: B baso Eng. rye : B ogi Gr. dorkas, d6rx: Comishyorch: B orkatz Eng. gate : B ate

116 In a letter which was written to Holmer in 1954, M expresses his opinions of the ety­

mological and comparative labours of Bouda in a paragraph which one would hope could not be applied in the future to the work of V or of any Basque scholar: "estoy plena­mente convencido ahora de que una parte muy considerable de sus paralelos es err6nea, y

que esto puede demostrarse, que otra gran parte es absolutamente problematica, e incluso, que si alguna vez acierta, le ocurre esto por completa casualidad y a pesar de sus mejores

esfuerzos para no conseguirlo. En una palabra, ei no investiga nada; se limita simplemente a tratar de demostrar, como sea, una idea preconcebida. Comprendo que le va mucho en

ello, puesto que en esto parece haber cifrado el exito o fracaso de su obra cientifica, pe­ro esto no es raz6n para que Ios demas vayamos a aceptar sus argumentos cuando, como ocurre tan frecuentemente, son completamente forzados y contrarios a todo lo que pode­

mos saber sobre la historia de !as palabras y de Ios sonidos vascos" (apud Sat:nlstegui

1998: 325-326).- Unfortunately, works such as Euskal Zibilizazioa (=Basque Civili­

sation) by Martinez Lizarduikoa quickly put paid to any such desire: it is evident, how­ever, that his arguments(?!), referring to the "basque process of hominization" and other such pleasantries would not be listened to in any civilized country (cf. L 1999).

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

chamois : B ahuntz Gr. ethos, ta ethne : B enda Old Eng. sceanca : B zango, zanko Old HighGr. scarpf/sarpf, skulanisuln : B zor Germ. strunk : Lat. truncus : B unkhu West Germ. *granta, great : B haundi

Faithful to his theory of the linguistic evolution of European prehistory, explicated in §2.1 and §2.22, within which Vasconic languages, i.e. ex­tinct languages which were related to historic B, entered into contact with Western IE languages (especially Italic languages, before and after these became established in the Italian Peninsula), V maintains that: The combining characteristic of all examples is the reliance on linguistic interpretations of existing or reconstructed phonotactics constraints and tendencies of B. Since we know from languages with longer periods of attestation than B that phonotactic constraints come and go, we may -or rather[ ... ] have to-- assume for every given constraint an earlier stage of the language at which that particular constraint was not yet operative. Thus, we may tentatively reconstruct, for any given item of the language under comparison, an­cestral forms that yield the attested form by application of the relevant constraints. If one of these reconstructed forms agrees well, both phonologically and semantically, with an unexplained item in a contact language, then, by interpreting that item as a loan-word

128 from the language under comparison, we may select that reconstructed form as the ety­mon of the attested word (V 1998: 384).

The author himself is aware that his line of etymological reconstruction must be utilised with the greatest care and judgement, even by those who are predisposed to use it. Specifically: E.g. assuming for Pro to-Vasconic a range of word-initial clusters similar to that of lE, B handi 'big', looked at isolation, could at least be reconstructed with the following an-lauts (not to mention its present one): *r-, *br-, *dr-, *pr-, *tr-, *IT-, *spr-, *str-, *skr-. Also single plosives are often lost in B, especially *k-, *g-, and initial *d-must at some prehistoric time have been deleted, which further increases the reservoir of possible etyma. The choice of PVasc. *grandi- 'big' from this set of possibilities as the ancestral form of B handi 'big' is thus entirely motivated by the comparison with Lat. grandi- 'big' (V, ibid). 117

Although the semantic and phonological conditions which are sup­posedly required for the etymologies appear to be strict and almost ultra orthodox118

, it seems to me that the whole construction suffers from a basic defect which converts it into pseudo-science and seriously reduces its value. Previously, we have pointed out that a reconstruction, whether

117 For some notes on the phonology and morphology of initials in Old PB see L 2009d, in progress-a.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

comparative or internal is of interest not so much for its own sake, except

perhaps for the occasional lexicographer in search of anecdotes, as for

what it tells us about the phonetics, morphology and syntax of the lan­

guage or languages analysed (§4 and L 1997b, 2008b, 20lla). In our case,

it is difficult to see what is to be gained by postulating the existence of

r- and Cr- groups (or sC- or various C-) in Vasconic, later lost in the pre­

history of B and maintained or transformed in supposed loans to IE lan­

guages in the vicinity of this supposed Vasconic and of historic B. This

explanation in no way accounts for previously unexplained irregularities

or alternations at a lower level (or closer to tangible data) but introduces

deus ex machina a series of entities which, it seems to me anyway, con­

vert obscurum into obscuriora.

The recourse to the form of the supposed Vasconic loans in order to

elucidate the origin of B terms is so excessively ad hoc that it cannot

quieten the worst suspicions of a comparative linguist: are we not facing

here purely coincidental similarities of the type Eng. (too) much: Sp.

Mucho, etc.? In any case, I hope that V will concede that bascologists

would have preferred an internal discussion of handi [see note 123] or of 129

ahuntz and orkatz, since it certainly does not seem as if all possibilities

of explanation along these lines have been exhausted. On the other hand,

V's philological flutterings, repeatedly pointed out above with respect

to B and IE material, are far too frequent and far too wide-ranging in

his treatment of the data relative to his new etymologies:

(1) I doubt if many will be able to agree with him that the relation be­

tween baso 'forest' and basa 'wild, waste (adj.)' -form of com­

position of baso; cf. asta- < asto 'monkey', etc.- is "uncertain"

118 "It need hardly be stressed that for this method to be effective, the requirements of

semantic and phonological fit will have to be extremely strict, approaching identity (ex­cepting the focused phonotactically motivated difference and subsequent language­specific developments), and the meaning themselves will have to be specific, and the

phonological agreement substantial, namely of some length. I hope the reader will find this strictness applied in the cases treated in this paper" (V 384-385), with a long note

(n. 84) on the supposed number of concordant phonemes in handi and ogi and the difficulties which are posed in this respect by hatz which he first compares with raza, etc. and then

with casta, traza, etc. to end up with: "Perhaps future research will allow a less pessi­mistic outlook on these strange similarities". [Now see L 2012b-d and in progress-d about ogi < *hor-gi and 3.11 about adin and -aga, -ago.]

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

or that ate really has much chance of being related to gate, how­

ever much V may have seen them side by side in Bilbao airport (V 357 [!!]).119

(2) It is strange, to say the least, that zango-zanko, which Bouda half a century ago - of course, after certain manipulations or liberties, cf. M 1950- compared with Caucasian cognates, should seem to V to be related to a Germ. *sKankV. The pity is that he did not previously consult in this case the Corominas-Pascual (1980-1991) in a place so little remote as zanca, where he would have seen that the B terms (and other similar Sp., Portuguese, Occitaine, Catalan and Italian terms) are derived from late Lat zanga, tzanga, which, in turn, ap­pears to have come from Ancient Persian zanga 'leg'.

(3) Enda 'race', which V, by a skilful use of metathesis, relates with etnia, has little likelihood of being a continuation of any Proto­Vasconic term, either in its form or for its slight (and late) distri­bution and attestation in B.

( 4) It is difficult to justify, on what is attested in Aquitanian (V 360, n. 35), that in Latin *-ts should have been taken as -x (and not as -s,

130 for example), no matter how much one may try to cover over an im­portant part of the question with graphemes such as (otzo) 'wolf', or (herautz) 'boar', (read otso and herauts with apical affricate), and carefully hiding that in all probability Aquitanian had two affricates (the same as it had two fricatives), both represented with (s): seme,

cison and with (x(s)) respectively, 120 as V well knows from the work ofM (1954), G (1984) and T (1997) 121

119 The -e of the second (which does not mean 'pass' but rather 'outside') can be com­pared with that in aurre 'before, in front of', atze 'behind', Biscayan gane 'over' or Parise, etc., all of which are words which have aquired it in local cases in it is inserted following consonantal themes. -With respect to baso (the use of which as an adverb -if it exists- is much later than the noun for 'forest') perhaps he could have found in it something in common with, for example, itsaso 'sea' and perhaps with aitaso 'grand­father', amaso 'grandmother' and, perhaps, otso 'wolf' < hor-tz 'fang'+ -so [see now L

in progress-e]. 120 < belex > beletz, < bihox > bihotz, etc. with dorsal affricate. According to V "[w]hether this only represents graphic attemps at rendering Aquitanian pronunciations adequately or whether occasional sound substituions, namely of [ks] for [ts], are in­volved, seems hard to determine". 121 The only reason for all of this, naturally, is that the road will then seem to him to be open to the comparison of the ending of esox with ahuntz.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

(5) Finally, that the late variant122 haundi suits V very well in order to

relate handi 'big' with WGerm. grauta, does not justify his con­sidering it "a problem for further research" only later to affirm: "I

naturally do no want to press the point, but it may be of interest that

a decision in favour of haundi as basic and of handi as a simplified

variant would have its virtue too" (V 382-383). 123

On the other hand, it is not only doubtful, but highly unlikely that Pro­

to-Vasconic *kamuts(a) should be the origin of ahuntz and Eng. chamois

(which is clearly a borrowing). 124 Szemerenyi 's hypothesis, according

to which chamois (Lat. camox) would be a pure IE term borrowed from

Celtic *kambo-ukso(n) 'deer-like animal with crooked (horns)', a com­

pound of Celtic *kambo 'krumm, crooked' and PIE *ukson 'ox, bull,

deer', deserves to be taken into account. In effect, an analysis *han-huntz

with the second element referring to (the type of) the horns and the first

to the type of the animal (and -n- > -h-, cf. anate > a hate), is not at all

impossible: ho-/huntz 'ivy' could perfectly well refer to goat-like horns.

To conclude. I see no reason why Proto-Vasconic should have possessed

r- or a series of Cr- or of C- (> fJ-) unless it is that Vasconic thus becomes

almost equivalent to an Indo-Europeanised B which would "explain" all

the rarities in IE languages which are still unexplained by IE scholars.

However, this means virtually nothing to the study ofB or to bascologists

[cf. L 1998b, 2008b] and it is possible that IE scholars may well believe

that what might be gained from this new proposal is not worth the price

which must be paid; for them it may seem more convincing that the

language represented by Ancient European hydronymy (V's Vasconic)

was IE, as Krahe and everybody else had believed until now.

ENDNOTE (SEPT. 2012) This work --essentially translated from L 1996b--, was submitted at the

beginning of 2005. In the time given by the publishing company (15

days at the end of August 2012) any relevant change to the text seemed

122 Very late [eighteenth century], and not much found outside the central areas and originating precisely in the territory where the evolution auC- > ac- is clearest, cf. FHV. 123 See now L in progress-e on han-di and other -til-di adjectives (cf. the -ti(k) pro­secutive/ablative). 124 By means of an "opportune" *kab-unts which V believes he can relate to the Lat. family caper and Germ. *hafr, etc.; there is no instance of *-m-> -h- in B that I am aware.

131

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

impossible, so that I merely corrected the typing errors 1 was able to observe. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any significant novelties in the field that 1 study, the reconstruction of the Proto-Basque and its con­sequences for the analysis of the language of Old European Hydronymy (and vice versa). 125126 Not before neither now I intended any exclusivity in the analysis of the Old European hydronymy from the Indo-European, Semitic or any other point of view, although any such analysis renders unnecessary -even incorrect- the appeal to Proto-Vasconic, arbitrarily reconstructed by Vennemann.

Thus, I don't think I should modify my line of argument nor my data in anything relevant and, certainly, my judgment as a bascologist, on the work by Vennemann analyzed here (as well as later works I know) hasn't changed a bit. As a matter of fact, the contemporary development of the research on the history and prehistory of the Basque language and the reconstruction of the Proto-Basque has made it even more unfavorable.

Among more recent works it is worth mentioning those on the aspira­tion by Igartua (2006, 2008, 2011), mine (2008d, 2009c, 2010a, 2012d, in progress-d) or that of Egurtzegi (2012a): it is clear that Vennemann

132 won't find any ground for his proposal there, since he claims that aspi­ration was in free variation with zero and modified neighboring vowels a la IE before its loss.

125 I cannot go without highlighting my astonishment regarding the publishing of the ar­ticle "On the debated origins of the Old-European Hydronymy" by M. H. Blong (2003: 401-427) in a prestigious journal such as Beitriige zur Namenjorschung. There, without discussing a single Indo-European, Basque or old hydronymic word (or even any word belonging to any language from the last 10000 years), the author feels able to establish -based on his "Connecticutt Model" the correction (or not) of the theories, analyses, arguments and data from Krahe, Vennemann, Kitson and the like. It is unknown to me if he has received anywhere the response he but, anyhow, it is obvious that anything the author has to say on "Basque", "Proto-Basque", "Vasconic" and, in general, any of his as curious as arbitrary conclusions does not concern me by any means]. 126 I regret to add that my opinion about E. Blasco Fen·er's Palaeo-Sardinian (vide L 2012[, among others) is not precisely favorable (I'm aware that the opinion of the other basco­logists is neither positive; we will let the Iberists explain themselves). Actually, not about Palaeo-Sardinian -since I don't have any opinion about the subject-, but about the usage of the reconstruction of the Proto-Basque for that of the Paiaeo-Sardinian, assuming a relationship between them. It is not the right time to elaborate but I can disclose that the formal and semantic liberties of the comparison become pure licentiousness given the non-standard usage of the Basque language's evolution and chronology].

-----------------

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

As the etymological nature of the aspiration becomes more and more

clear, so do its presence on Proto-Basque as well as in all dialects until

almost the end of the Middle Ages, and, consequently, its worth in the

reconstruction of the Proto-Basque. Likewise, the dissimilative loss to

other aspirated segments (*hVh- > ()VhV/()V()C), as well as the drop of

the *h- by distance from the stressed syllable, is another factor favoring

the modem abundance (from the last 5 centuries) of Basque words be­

ginning with V-. On further phonological aspects of the reconstruction -the PB accent,

for example- the dissertation of Martinez (2006) and some works by

Hualde (2006, 2009), Elordieta (20 11 a/b) and Egurtzegi (20 12b) can be

consulted. I have published more on the structure of the (Pro to-)Basque root after

the works mentioned and argued here: there is a thorough synthesis in

(20 11 b) and -for those who cannot read Basque- a brief er in Lakarra

(2011c) and its version in English (2012e). The study of the canonical form and its evolution allows (Lakarra 2009b)

to deal with a formal etymology (Lakarra 2008b) -it was already sug­

gested by Uhlenbeck (1947 [1942]) but it was not put into practice­

which permits to make a distinction between recent patterns with nu­

merous loans, compounds and transparently derived words and practi­

cally without simple inherited words (most of the models are disyllabic

radicals) and its specular image, and the eve pattern suggested by us

in 1995 and corroborated in several subsequent works.

Moreover, a holistic reconstruction model (L 2006a) consistent with

the eve root has lead us to discover new irregularities regarding the

perfect agglutinative-sufflxal-SOV-etc. language that Vennemann adopts

in Vasconic starting from a similar model that may be suitable for the

historic Basque (not without some "abstractions" and "simplifications"

[see L 2006a and 20lla]) but under no circumstances could be suitable

for the Recent Proto-Basque -last centuries before the Age- and let

alone previous stages (Old Proto-Basque), in which features such as pre­

fixing -not only verbal (more widespread at the time) but also nomi­

nal-, the stress at the right of the monosyllabic root, the shortage or lack

of verbal agreement, the presence of numerous serial verbs that later were

grammaticalized, the "with = and" construction (Stassen 2000, L 2008c

and before 1983), the delayed nature of the derivative and inflectional

133

134

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

suffixes -with some transformations of prefixes into suffixes noticed similar to those in the Munda languages-, relative at the right, etc., 127

show that the Old Proto-Basque reconstructable with confidence to cer­tain extent -maybe one or several millennia before the Recent Proto­Basque, but much closer to us than the phantom presented in Vasconic by Vennemann (-10000?, -8000?)- it was an isolating language or a language sharing many features with an isolating language that was un­der a drift towards an agglutinative structure (imperfect, with isolating features that Vennemann completely "forgets" in his works).

To summarize, if in 1996 and 2005 the gap between the standard re­construction of Proto-Basque and its usage to shape Vennemann's Vas­conic -a biased manipulation in certain crucial cases- was long and evident for the bascologists, nowadays suffice it to say that the contri­bution of Vennemann to the actual study of the prehistory of the Basque language has been null and void and the former is developed in ways that have nothing to do with his work.

Finally, according to our thoughts on the alleged Proto-Vasconic exten­sion, I must say that the considerations of Juha Janhunen (2008, 2009) and others on the much more limited extension and amount of speakers of Proto-Uralic (and on those of any given proto-language) seem much more realistic to me for the Proto-Basque. This leads us to think on an Old Europe prior to the indoeuropeization much more similar to what we know that New Guinea, Australia, America or North-Eurasia have been before the changes due to the accidental colonization. 128

127 Some of this features agree with certain proposals by Holmer (1970), --carried out in a very different Framework-, which unfortunately wasn't echoed in the forhcoming Bascology. 128 I totally agree with Patrick Sims-Williams when he states that "This problem [coin­cidental homophony] is often underestimed. For example, Vennemenan 1998 claims to find place names containing Basque bide 'road' all over Europe, for example, Bitburg and Betzdorf in Germany and Bedford and Bideford in England. As he says, there are roads at these places. But is that not trae of most places? Bidar in India and Bida in Nigeria are also on roads, but who would Chaim that Basque was spoken in India and Africa?" (2012: 15, footnote 106); and even more given that bide -which shows a hardly Proto­basque TVTV structure- has every chance of being a Latin or Romance borrowing.

---------~- -------

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

REFERENCES Aalto, P. 1988. The problem of"Nostratic". Archivio Istituto Orientate di Napoli 10,49-66. Adrados, F. R. 1988. Nuevos estudios de linguistica indoeuropea. Madrid: Gredos. Adrados, F. R. 1989. Etruscan as an IE Anatolian (but not Hittite) language. JIES 17,

363-383. Aertsen, H. & R. Jeffers (eds.). 1993. Historical Linguistics 1989. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins. Alonso, J. 1996. Desciframiento de la lengua iberico-tartesica. Barcelona: Fundaci6n

Tartesos. Alonso, J. 1997. Desciframiento de la lengua etrusca. Barcelona: Jomal. Alonso, J. 1998. Traducci6n de nuevos textos ibericos. Madrid-Granada. Alvar, M. et alii ( eds. ). 1960. Enciclopedia linguistica hisp!mica. Madrid: CSIC. Alvar, M. & B. Pottier. 1983. Morfologia hist6rica del espaiiol. Madrid: Gredos. Andersen, H. & K. Koemer (eds.). 1990. Historical linguistics 1987. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins. Anderson, J. M. 1988. Ancient languages of the Hispanic Peninsula. Lanham, MD: U.

P. of America. Anderson, J. M. 1993. Iberian and Basque linguistic similarities. In: Untermann & Villar

(eds.), 487-498. Ariztimuiio, B. 2011. Antzinateko euskal idazkunak eta aitzineuskararen berreraiketa:

corpus a, analisia eta ondorioak [Master thesis presented at UPV/EHU]. Amaiz, A. & J. Alonso. 1998. El origen de !os vascos y otros pueblos mediternineos.

Madrid: Complutense. Arbeitman, Y. L. & A. Bomhard (eds.). 1981. Essays in historical linguistics in memory

of J. A. Alexander Kerns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Artiagoitia, X. 1990. Sobre la estructura de la silaba en (proto)vasco y algunos fen6menos

conexos. ASJU24: 2, 327-349. Artiagoitia, X., P. Goenaga & J. A. Lakarra (eds.). 2002. Erramu Boneta: Festschriftfor

Rudolf P. G. de Rijk. Supplements of ASJU XLIV. Bilbao: UPV/EHU. Artiagoitia, X. & J. A. Lakarra (eds.), 2008, Gramatika Jaietan. Patxi Goenagari

Omenaldia. Supplements of ASJULI. Bilbao: UPV/EHU. Arzamendi, J. 1985. Terminos vascos en documentos medievales de los siglos XI-XVI.

Bilbao: UPV/EHU. ASJU = Anuario del Seminario de Filologia Vasca "Julio de Urquijo ". International

Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology. Austerlitz, R. 1968. L'ouralien. In: Martinet (ed.), 1331-1386. Austerlitz, R. 1976. L'aglutination dans les langues de l'Eurasie septentrionale. Etudes

Finno-ougriennes 13, 7-12. Azkarate, M. & P. Altuna. 2001. Euskal morfologiaren historia. Donostia: Elkarlanean. Azkue, R. M" de. 1905-1906. Diccionario vasco-espaiiol-frances. Reed. facsimil Bilbao

1969. 2 vols. Baldi, Ph. (ed.). 1990. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology. Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyter. Baldi, Ph. & B. R. Page. 2006. (Review of) Theo Vennemann: Europa Vasconica- Eu­

ropa Semitic a. Lingua 117, 2183-2220. Baldinger, K. 1958a. La formaci6n de los dominios linguisticos en la Peninsula Iberica.

2th ed. Madrid: Gredos 1972.

135

136

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

Baldinger, K. 1958b. La position du gascon entre la Galloromania et l'Iberomania. Re­vue de Linguistique Romane 22, 241 ~292.

Bengtson, J. (ed.). 2008. In hot pursuit of language in prehistory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bertoldi, V. 1931. Problemes de substrat. Essai de methodologie dans le domaine de la toponymie et du vocabulaire. BSL 32, 93~ 183.

Bertoldi, V. 1937. Contatti e conflitti di lingue nell'antico Mediterraneo. In: Festschrift Karl Jaberg, Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer, 137~169.

Blasco Ferrer, E. & A. Nocentini (eds.). 2012. Gorosti U5b3: 1st International Work­shop on: Iberia and Sardinia from the Mesolithic Period to the Late Bronze Age: Linguistic, Genetic, and Archaeological Link (13~ 16 June 20 12) [in press].

Blust, R. A. 1988a. Austronesian root theory: An essay on the limits of morphology: Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Blust, R. A. 1988b. Beyond the morpheme: Austronesian root theory and related matters. In: McGinn (ed.), 3~90.

Bohas, G. 1997. Matrices, etymons, racines: Elements d'une theorie lexicologique du vocabulaire arabe. "Orbis Supplementa". Leuven-Paris: Peeters.

Bomhard, A. R. 1990. A survey of the comparative phonology of the so-called "Nostratic" languages. In: Baldi (ed.), 331~358.

Bomhard, A. R. 1991. Lexical paralleles between Proto-Indo-European and other lan­guages. In: Isebaert (ed.), 47~106.

Bouda, Ch. 1950. L'euskaro-caucasique. In: Homenaje a D. Julio de Urquijo e Ybarra: Estudios relativos al pais vasco Homenaje a J de Urquijo. Vol. 3. Donostia, 207~232.

Braun, J. 1998. Euscaro-Caucasica: Historical and comparative studies on Kartvelian and Basque. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademickie DIALOG (= Philologia Orientalis 4).

Brogyanyi, B. & R. Lipp (eds.). 1993. Comparative historical linguistics: Indo-European and Finno-Ugric: Papers in Honor ofO. Szemerenyi Ill. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Buse, J. & R. Taringa. 1996. Cook Islands Maori dictionary with Englishfinderlist. Pa­cific Linguistics C-123. Canberra: ANU.

Bynon, J. & T. Bynon (eds.). 1975. Hamito-Semitica. The Hague: Mouton. Campbell, L. 1988. (Review-article) J. H. Greenberg, Language in the Americas. Lan­

guage 64, 591~615. Campbell, L. 1990. Syntactic reconstruction and Finno-Ugric. In: Andersen & Koemer

(eds.), 51~94. Campbell, L. 1993. On proposed universals of grammatical borrowing. In: Aertsen &

Jeffers (eds.), 91~108. Campbell, L. 1997a. American Indian languages. Oxford: Oxford U. P. Camp bell, L. 1997b. Typological and area! issues in reconstruction. In: Fisiak (ed.), 49~72. Campbell, L. 1997c. On the linguistic prehistory ofFinno-Ugric. In: Hickey & Puppel

( eds. ), 829~861. Campbell, L. 1998a. Nostratic: A personal assessment. In: Salmons & Joseph (eds.), 107~152.

Campbell, L. 1998b. Historical linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh U. P. Capell, A. 1984. Futuna-Aniwa dictionary, with grammatical introduction. Pacific Lin­

guistics C-56. Canberra: ANU. Cardona, G., H. Hoenigswald & A. Senn (eds.). 1970. Indo-European and Indo-Euro­

peans. Philadelphia: U. of Pennsylvania P.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

Carenko, E. I. 1975. On laryngealization in Quechua. Linguistics 146,5-14. Casagrande, J. 1954-1955. Comanche linguistic acculturation. IJAL 20, 140-151,217-

237 andiJAL 21,8-25. Castafios, F. 1979. El euzkera [sic] y otras lenguas. Bilbao 1984. Catalan, D. (ed.). 1962. Miscel(mea homenaje a Andre Martinet: Estructuralismo e his­

toria. La Laguna: Univ. de La Laguna. Chaker, S. 1975. L'apparentement de la langue berbere. Reed. in: Chaker 1984. Textes

en linguistique berbere. Paris: CNRS, 232-245. Chaker, S. 1990. Comparatisme et reconstruction dans le domaine chamito-semitique:

problemes de methodes et de limites. Reed. in Chaker 1995. Linguistique berbere. Etudes de syntaxe et de diachronie. Paris-Louvain: Peeters, 161-186.

Charachidze, G. 1986-1987. Gamkrelidze-Ivanov: Les indo-europeens et le Caucase. Revue d 'Etudes Georgiennes et Caucasiques 2, 211-222 and 3, 159-172.

Charachidze, G. 1990-1991. Emprunts lexicaux en oubykh. Revue d'Etudes Georgiennes et Caucasiques 6-7,217-235.

Company, C. 1991. La extension del articulo en el espafiol medieval. Romance Philology 44, 402-424.

Comrie, B. 1993. Typology and reconstruction. In: Jones ( ed.), 74-97. Coromines, J. 1960. La toponymie hispanique prerromane et la survivance du basque

jusqu'au bas moyen age. Actes et Memoires du IV Congres Intern. de Sciences Ono­mastiques. Miinchen, 105-144.

Coromines, J. 1972. T6pica Hesperica. Estudio sabre los antiguos dialectos, el substrata y la toponfmia romances. 2 vols. Madrid: Gredos.

Coromines, J. & J. A. Pascual. 1980-1991. Diccionario critico etimol6gico castellano e 137 hispimico. Madrid: Gredos.

Croft, W. 1993. Typology and universals. Cambridge, N.Y.: Cambridge U. P. [1st ed. 1990].

De Hoz, J. 1963. Hidronimia antigua europea en la Peninsula Iberica. Emerita 31, 227-242.

De Hoz, J. 1981. El euskera y !as lenguas vecinas antes de la romanizaci6n. In: Euskal linguistika eta literatura: bide berriak. Bilbao: Univ. ofDeusto, 27-56.

De Hoz, J. 1993. La lengua y la escritura ibericas y !as lenguas de Ios iberos. In: Un­termann & Villar (eds.), 635-666.

De Hoz, J. 1999. Los origenes lingiiisticos de Europa. El Campo de !as ciencias y !as artes 11, 1-27.

De Hoz, J. 2001. Hacia una tipologia del iberico. In: Villar & Fdez Alvarez (eds.), 335-362.

De Hoz, J. 2010-2011. Historia lingiiistica de la Peninsula Iberica en la Antigiiedad I: Preliminares y mundo meridional prerromano; II: El m undo iberico prerromano y la indoeuropeizaci6n (2 vols. until now). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (= Manuales y Anejos de Emerita 50-51).

De Rijk, R. P. G. 1969. Is Basque a SOV language? Fontes Linguae Vasconum 3, 319-351. Reed. in: De Rijk 1998, 13-37.

De Rijk, R. P. G. 1970. Vowel interaction in Biscayan Basque. Fontes Linguae Vasco­num 5, 149-167. Reed. in: De Rijk 1998,39-53.

De Rijk, R. P. G. 1981. Euskal morfologiaren zenbait gorabehera. In: Euskallinguistika eta literatura: bide berriak. Bilbao, 83-10 I. Reed. in: De Rijk 1998, 211-224.

De Rijk, R. P. G. 1992. "Nunc" Vasconice. ASJU26:3, 695-724.

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

De Rijk, R. P. G. 1998. De lingua uasconum: Selected writings. Supplements of ASJU 43. Bilbao: UP\7EHU.

Decsy, G. 1990. The Uralic protolanguage: A comprehensive reconstruction. Indiana: Eurolingua.

Diakonoff, I. M. 1970. Problems of root structure in Proto-Semitic. Archiv Orientalni 38, 453-480.

Diakonoff, I. M. 1975. On root structure in Proto-Semitic. In: Bynon & Bynon (eds.), 133-153.

Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P. Doerfer, G. 1995. The recent development of nostratism. Indogermanische Forschun­

gen lOO, 252-267. Donegan, P. 1993. Rhythm and vocalic drift in Munda and Mon-Khmer. Linguistics in the

Tibeto-Burma Area 16, 1-43. Donegan, P. & D. Stampe. 1983. Rhythm and the holistic organization of language

structure. In: Richardson et al. (eds.), 337-353. Donegan, P. & D. Stampe. 2004. Rhythm and the synthetic drift in Munda. In: The

Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3-36. Douglass, W. A. et alii (eds.). 1977. Anglo-American contributions to Basque studies:

Essays in honor of Jon Bilbao. Reno. Dunkel, G. 1981. Typology vs. Reconstruction. In: Arbeitman & Bomhard (eds.), 559-

569. Egurtzegi, A. 2011. Euskal metatesiak: Abiaburua haien ikerketarako. ASJU 45:1, 1-88.

138 Egurtzegi, A. 2012a. Phonetics and Phonology. In: Martinez Areta & Padilla (eds.), 60-113 [in press].

Egurtzegi, A. 2012b. Diferentes tipos de aspiraci6n en vasco (con amilisis espectrales del dialecto suletino actual). In: Blasco Ferrer & Nocentini (eds.) [in press].

Elordieta, G. 20lla. Euskal azentuaren bilakaera: hipotesi eta proposamenak. In: Sagarna, Lakarra & Salaberri (eds.), 989-1014.

Elordieta, G. 2011 b. Euskal azentu eta intonazioari buruzko ikerketa: status quaestionis. In: Lakarra, Gorrochategui & Urgell (eds.), 389-429.

Ehret, C. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): vowels, tone, con­sonants, and vocabulary. Berkeley, Calif.: Univ. of California Press (University of California publications in linguistics 126].

Elmendorf, W. W. 1997. A preliminary analysis of Yukian root structure. Anthropo­logical Linguistics 39: 1, 74-91.

Epelde, I. & K. Zuazo (eds.). 2012. *On Basque Dialectology. Supplements of ASJU. Vitoria-Gasteiz [in press].

Etxeberria, P. & H. Knorr (eds.). 2005. Nerekin yaio nun: Txillardegiri Omenaldia. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia (= Iker 17).

Fernandez, B. & I. Laka (eds.). 2006. Andolin Eguzkitza gogoan. Bilbao: UPVIEHU. Fisiak, J. (ed.). 1990. Historical linguistics and philology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fisiak, J. (ed.). 1997. Linguistic reconstruction and typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fleuriot, L. 1991. Celtoromanica in the light of the newly discovered Celtic inscriptions.

Zeitschriflfiir Celtische Philologie 44, 1-35. Fox, A. 1995. Linguistic reconstruction: An introduction to theory and method. Oxford:

Oxford U. P.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

Gamkrelidze, T.V. 1966. A typology of Common Kartvelian. Language 42, 69-83. Gamkrelidze, T. V. 1967. Kartvelian and Indo-European: A typological comparison of

reconstructed linguistic systems. In: To honor Roman Jakobson I. The Hague: Mouton,

707-717. Gamkrelidze, T. V. 1976. Linguistic typology and Indo-European reconstruction. In:

Juilland et alii (eds.), 399-406. Gamkrelidze, T. V. & V. V. Ivanov. 1984. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans.

English translation from Russian by J. Nichols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 1995. Garcia Soler, M. J. (ed.). 2002. Homenaje al profesor Pedro A. Ganzarain. Vitoria­

Gasteiz: UPV/EHU. G6mez, R. 1994. Euskal aditz morfologia eta hitzordena: VSO-tik SOV-ra. In: Orpustan

(ed.), 93-114. G6mez, R. 2005. De re etymologica: vase. -(r)antz 'hacia'. In: Etxeberria & Knorr ( eds.),

273-280. G6mez, R. & K. Sainz. 199 5. On the origin of the finite forms of the Basque verb. In:

Hualde, Lakarra & Trask (eds.), 235-274. G6mez, R., J. Gorrochategui, J. A. Lakarra & C. Mounole (eds.). 2012. 3th Conference

of the Luis Michelena Chair - "Koldo Mitxelena" Katedraren 3. Biltzarra - Ill. Congreso de la Catedra "Luis Michelena ". Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV/EHU [in press].

G6mez Seibane, S. & J. L. Ramirez Luengo (eds.). 2010. Maestra en mucho: Estudios .filol6gicos en homenaje a Carmen Isasi Martinez. Buenos Aires: Voces del Sur.

Gonda, J. 1949/1951-1952, Indonesian linguistics and genera1linguistics (1-11). Lingua 2, 308-339; 3, 17-51.

Gorog, R. P. de. 1962. A note on the Finnish treatment of Germanic f Word 18, 300-306. 139 Gorostiaga, J. 1953. Vocabulario del Refranero Vizcaino de 1596. Salamanca: Universidad. Gorrochategui, J. 1984. Estudio sabre la onomastica indigena de Aquitania. Bilbao:

UPV/EHU. Gorrochategui, J. 1985a. Historia de las ideas acerca de Ios limites geognificos del vasco

antiguo. ASJU 19, 571-594. Gorrochategui, J. 1985b. Lengua aquitana y lengua gala en la Aquitania etnografica. In:

Melena (ed.), 613-628. Gorrochategui, J. 1986. Sobre Lengua e historia: comentarios de lingiiistica diacr6nica,

vasca y paleohispanica. ASJU20, 507-532. Gorrochategui, J. 1987a. Vasco-celtica. ASJU 21, 951-959. Gorrochategui, J. 1987b. Situaci6n lingiiistica de Navarra y aledafios en la antigiiedad a

partir de fuentes epigraficas. In: Primer Congreso General de Historia de Navarra 11. Pamplona [Principe de Viana, Anejo 7], 435-445.

Gorrochategui, J. 1989. (Review) J. M. Anderson, Ancient languages of the Hispanic Peninsula. Veleia 6, 306-308.

Gorrochategui, J. 1992. (Review) C. Renfrew, Arqueologia y lenguaje: La cuesti6n de Ios origenes indoeuropeos. ASJU 26, 1017-1026.

Gorrochategui, J. 1993. La onomastica aquitana y su relaci6n con la iberica. In: Unter­mann & Villar (eds.), 609-634.

Gorrochategui, J. 1995. The Basque language and its neighbors in Antiquity. In: Hualde, Lakarra & Trask ( eds. ), 31-64.

Gorrochategui, J. 1998. Euskararen historiaurreaz zenbait gogoeta: Algunas reflexio­nes sabre la prehistoria de la lengua vasca/Lecci6n Inaugural del Curso Academico 1998-99. Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV/EHU.

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

Gorrochategui, J. 2012. Hispania indoeuropea y no indoeuropea. In: Blasco Ferrer & Nocentini (eds.) [in press].

Gorrochategui, J. & J. A. Lakarra. 1996. Nuevas aportaciones a la reconstrucci6n del protovasco. In: Villar & D'Encama<;ao (eds.), 101-145.

Gorrochategui, J. & J. A. Lakarra. 2001. Comparaci6n lingiiistica, filologia y recons­trucci6n del protovasco. In: Villar & Fdez Alvarez (eds.), 407--438.

Gorrochategui, J., J. L. Melena & J. Santos (eds.). 1987. Studia palaeohispanica: Aetas del IV Coloquio sabre Lenguas y Culturas paleohispanicas. Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV/EHU (= Veleia 2-3).

Gorrotxategi, J., I. Igartua & J. A. Lakarra (eds.). 2012. Euskararen historia. Vitoria­Gasteiz: Basque Government [in press].

Greenberg, J. 1963a. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Reed. in: Greenberg 1990,40-70.

Greenberg, J. 1963b. Languages of Africa. Bloomington: Indiana U. P. Greenberg, J. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford, CA: Stanford U. P. Greenberg, J. 1990. On language: selected writtings of J. H. Greenberg. Stanford, CA:

Stanford U. P. Greenberg, J. 1998. The convergence of Euroasiatic and Nostratic. In: Salmons & Jo­

seph (eds.), 51-60. Greenberg, J. et alii (eds.). 1978. Universals of human language. Stanford, CA: Stan­

ford U. P. Haarmann, H. 1994. Contact linguistics, archaeology and ethnogenetics: An inter­

disciplinary approach to the Indo-European homeland problem. JIES 22, 265-288. 140 Haannann, H. 1998. Basque ethnogenesis, acculturation, and the role of language con-

tacts. Fontes Linguae Vasconum 30, 25--42. Haider, H. 1985. The fallacy of typology: remarks on the PIE stop-system. Lingua 65,

1-27. Hamp, E. P. 1998. Some draft principles for classification. In: Salmons & Joseph (eds.),

13-15. Harris, A. C. 1990. Kartvelian contacts with Indo-European. In: Markey & Greppin

( eds. ), 67-100. Harris, A. C. & L. Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective.

Cambridge: Cambridge U. P. Heine, B. 1980. Language typology and linguistic reconstruction: The Niger-Congo

case. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 2, 95-112. Henderson, E. J. A. 1951. The phonology of loan-words in some S-E Asian languages.

Transactions of the Philological Society 50, 131-158. Hickey, R. & S. Puppel (eds.). 1997. Language history and linguistic modeling: Afest­

schrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hidalgo, B. 1995. Ohar estatistiko garrantzitsuak euskararen hitz ordenaren inguru:

Euskara S.V.O.? FLV27, 401--420. Hidalgo, B. 1996. Hurbiltze bat euskal hitz-ordenaren tradizioari. FLV 28, 21--43. Hoenigswald, H. M. 1960. Language change and linguistic reconstruction. Chicago:

Chicago U. P. Hoenigswald, H. M. 1992. Comparative method, internal reconstruction, typology. In:

Polome & Winter (eds.), 23-34. Holmer, N. M. 1970. A historic-comparative analysis of the structure of the Basque

language. Fontes Linguae Vasconum 2, 5--47.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

Hualde, J. I. 1987. Proto-Basque Yod. FLV 49, 29-40. Hualde, J. I. 1995. Reconstructing the ancient Basque accentual system: Hypothesis

and evidence. In: Hualde, Lakarra & Trask (eds.), 171-188. Hualde, J. I. 1997a. Aitzineuskararen leherkariak. ASJU31, 411-424.

Hualde, J. I. 1997b. Zerbait gehiago euskal azentubideen historiaz. ASJU 31, 425-445.

Hualde, J. I. 2006. Laringalak eta euskal azentuaren bilakaera. In: Fermindez & Laka

(eds.), 497-511. Hualde, J. I. 2009. Acentuaci6n y cronologia relativa en la lengua vasca. Oihenart 23,

199-217. Hualde, J. I. & I. Gaminde. 1997. Vowel interaction in Basque: A nearly exhaustive ca­

talogue. ASJU 31, 211-245. Hualde, J. I., J. A. Lakarra & L. Trask (eds.). 1995. Towards a history of Basque lan­

guage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hualde, J. I. & J. Ortiz de Urbina (eds.). 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyter. Hubschmid, J. 1960. Toponimia prerromana. In: Alvar et alii (eds.), 445-493.

Huld, M. E. 1990. The linguistic typology of the Old European substrata in North Central

Europe. JIES 18, 389-423. Igartua, I. 1996. Sobre el factor de la casualidad en la comparaci6n lingiiistica. ASJU

30, 99-125. Igartua, I. 2002. Euskararen hasperena ikuspegi tipologiko eta diakronikotik. In: Artia­

goitia, Goenaga & Lakarra (eds.), 366-389. Igartua, I. 2006. Del origen de la aspiraci6n como elemento morfonol6gico en vasco. 141

In: Lakarra & Hualde (eds.), 519-530. Igartua, I. 2008a. La aspiraci6n de origen nasal en la evoluci6n fonol6gica del euskera:

un caso de rhinoglottophilia. ASJU 42: I, 171-189.

Igartua, I. 2008b, Algun paralelo tipol6gico mas para la h vasca de origen nasal. ASJU

42:2, 353-357. Igartua, I. 2011. Historia abreviada de la aspiraci6n en !as lenguas circumpirenaicas. In:

Sagarna, Lakarra & Salaberri (eds.), 895-918. Igartua, I. (ed.). 2012. Euskara eta inguruko hizkuntzak historian zehar. Vitoria-Gasteiz:

Eusko Jaurlaritza [in press]. Irigoyen, A. 1977. Gure hizkuntzari euskaldunok deritzagun izenez. Euskera 22, 513-538.

Isebaert, L. (ed.). 1991. Studia etymologica indoeuropaea: Memoriae A. J. van Winde­

kens (1915-89) dicata. Lovaina. Iverson, G. K. & J. C. Salmons. 1992. The phonology of the Proto-Indo-European root

structure constraints. Lingua 87, 293-320. Jakobson, R. 1957. Typological studies and their contribution to historical comparative

linguistics. Reed. in: Selected writings. The Hague: Mouton.

Janhunen, I. 2007. The primary laryngal in Uralic and beyond. In: Ylikoski et al. (eds.),

203-227. Janhunen, I. 2008. Some Old World experience of linguistic dating. In: Bengtson ( ed.),

223-239. Janhunen, I. 2009. Proto-Uralic: what, where, and when? In: Ylikoski et al. (eds.), 57-78.

Jones, Ch. (ed.). 1993. Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives. London: Long­

man.

142

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

Jordan, C. 1998. De la raiz *iz- 'agua' en vasco. Fontes Linguae Vasconum 30,267-279. Juilland, A. et alii (eds.). 1976. Linguistic studies offered to J Greenberg on the occasion

of his 60th birthday. 3 vols. Saratoga: Anma Libri. Kitson, P. R. 1996. British and European river-names. Transactions of the Philological

Society 94,73-118. Kitson, P. R. 1997. Reconstruction, typology, and the "original homeland" of the Indo­

Europeans. In: Fisiak ( ed. ), 183-239. Klimov, G. A. 1991. Some thoughts on Indo-European-Kartvelian relations. JIES 19,

325-341. Lafon, R. 1943. Le systeme du verbe basque au XV!'me siecle. Donostia-San Sebastian:

Elkar 1980. Lafon, R. 1950. Remarques sur le racine en basque. Boletin de la Real Sociedad Vascon­

gada de Amigos del Pais 6, 303-308. Lafon, R. 1951-1952. Concordances morphologiques entre le basque et les langues cau-

casiques. Word 7, 227-244 and Word 8, 80-94. Lafon, R. 1999. Vasconiana. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia (= Iker 11). Lakarra, J. A. 1983. Oharrak zenbait arkaismoz, ASJU 17, 41-68. Lakarra, J. A. 1986. Bizkaiera zaharra euskalkien artean. ASJU 20, 639-682. Lakarra, J. A. 1991. (Review) J. L. Roman del Cerro, El desciframiento de la lengua

iberica en "La ofrenda de los Pueblos". ASJU25: 3, 1001-1004. Lakarra, J. A. 1995. Reconstructing the root in Pre-Proto-Basque. In: Hualde, Lakarra

& Trask (eds.), 189-206. Lakarra, J. A. 1996a. Refranes y Sentencias: Ikerketak eta edizioa. Bilbao: Euskal­

tzaindia-Bizkaiko Diputazioa. Lakarra, J. A. 1996b. Sobre el europeo antiguo y la reconstrucci6n del protovasco.

ASJU30, 1-70. Lakarra, J. A. 1997a. Euskararen historia eta filologia: Arazo zahar, bide berri. ASJU

31,447-535. Lakarra, J. A. 1997b. Gogoetak aitzineuskararen berreraiketaz: Konparaketa eta bame­

berreraiketa. ASJU 31, 53 7-616. Lakarra, J. A. 1998a. Hizkuntzalaritza konparatua eta aitzineuskararen erroa. Uztaro

25, 47-110. Lakarra, J. A. 1998b. Gure izterlehengusuek eta guk erro bera? Gogoetak erroaz aitzin­

kartvelikoz eta aitzineuskaraz. In: Turrez, Arejita & Isasi (eds.), 125-150. Lakarra, J. A. 1999. Na-De-Na. Uztaro 31, 15-84. Lakarra, J. A. 2002a. Adar, ahuntz, handi: sobre identificaci6n de sustratos y morfologia

de la protolengua. In: Garcia Soler (ed.), 417-429. Lakarra, J. A. 2002b. Etymologiae (proto)uasconicae LXV. In: Artiagoitia, Goenaga &

Lakarra (eds.), 425-442. Lakarra, J. A. 2005. Proleg6menos a la reconstrucci6n de segundo grado y al analisis

del cambio tipol6gico en (proto )vasco. Palaeohispanica 5, 407-470. Lakarra, J. A. 2006a. Protovasco, munda y otros: reconstrucci6n intema y tipologia

holistica diacr6nica. Oihenart 21, 299-322. Lakarra, J. A. 2006b. Jaun etajabe,jaio eta herio,jin etajoan ... etimologiaz eta aditz

zaharraz. In: Femandez & Laka (eds.), 575-611. Lakarra, J. A. 2006c. Notas sobre iniciales, cambio tipol6gico y prehistoria del verbo

vasco. In: Lakarra & Hualde (eds.), 561-621.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

Lakarra, J. A. 2008a. Aitzineuskararen gramatikarantz malkar eta osinetan zehar. In:

Artiagoitia & Lakarra (eds.), 451--490. Lakarra, J. A. 2008b. Hacia un nuevo paradigma etimol6gico vasco: Forma can6nica,

etimologia y reconstrucci6n en el campo vasco. ASJU37, 261-391. Lakarra, J. A. 2008c. Vida con/y libertad: sobre una coordinaci6n arcaica y la auten­

ticidad de "Urthubiako Alhaba". ASJU 42, 83-100. Lakarra, J. A. 2008d. *h3 > hi. *h2 > h1 eta horiei datxezkien zenbait fcnomenoz.

Lapurdum 13, 247-272 [in press]. Lakarra, J. A. 2009a. Temas para un pr61ogo: Forma can6nica, tipologia holistica dia­

cr6nica y reconstrucci6n del protovasco. Oihenart 23, 477-547.

Lakarra, J. A. 2009b. Forma can6nica y cambios en la forma can6nica en la prehistoria

de la lengua vasca: hacia Ios or:igenes del bisilabismo. Palaeohispanica 9, 557-609.

Lakarra, J. A. 2009c. Adabakiak /h/-aren balio etimologikoaz. ASJU 43:1-2, 565-596.

Lakarra, J. A. 2009d. Aitzineuskara berreraikiaz: Zergatik ezkerra? Euskera 54, 17-98.

Lakarra, J. A. 201 Oa. Haches, diptongos y otros detalles de alguna importancia: notas

sobre numerales (proto)vascos y comparaci6n vasco-iberica, con un apendice sobre

hiri y otro sobre bat-bi. Veleia 27, 191-238. Lakarra, J. A. 2010b. Refranes y Sentencias-cko lcxikoaz ohar dozena. In: G6mcz Sci­

bane & Ramircz Luengo (eds.), 159-179. Lakarra, J. A. 20lla. Erro monosilabikoaren teoria eta aitzineuskararen berreraiketa:

zenbait alderdi eta ondorio. Pontes Linguae Vasconum 113, 5-114. Lakarra, J. A. 2011b. Aitzineuskara: egindakoak eta eginkizunak. In: Sagama, Lakarra

& Salaberri (eds.), 617-694. Lakarra, J. A. 2011c. Sobre la teoria de la raiz monosibibica en protovasco antiguo: 143

algunos aspectos y consecuencias. In: Lakarra, Gorrochategui & Urgell (eds.), 651-700.

Lakarra, J. A. 2012a, Gogoetak euskal dialektologia diakronikoaz: Euskara Batu Zaharra

berreraiki beharraz eta haren banaketaren ikerketaz. In: Epelde & Zuazo (eds.) [in press].

Lakarra, J. A. 2012b. Aitzineuskararen berreraiketa: Maileguak eta forma kanonikoa.

In: lgartua (ed.) [in press]. Lakarra, J. A. 2012c. Euskararen historiaurrea. In: Gorrotxategi, Igartua & Lakarra (eds.)

[in press]. Lakarra, J. A. 2012d. Mas sobre haches etimol6gicas vascas: prestamos gascones y meta­

tesis vascas. Ms. UPV/EHU. Lakarra, J. A. 2012e. Root structure [English translation of Lakarra 201lc]. In: Martinez

Areta & Padilla ( eds.) [in press]. Lakarra, J. A. 2012f. Protovasco: comparaci6n y reconstrucci6n ... wara que y c6mo?

(Por una vascologia autocentrada, no ensimismada). In: Blasco & Nocentini (eds.) [in

press]. Lakarra, J. A. 2012g. Berreraiketa sakonagoaren zenbait oinarri: Forma kanonikoa, krono­

logia, gramatikalizazioa. In: G6mez, Gorrochategui, Lakarra & Mounole (eds.) [in press].

Lakarra, J. A. 2012h. Gramatica hist6rica vasca y comparaci6n vasco-iberica. Palaeo­hispanica XII (=Aetas del Congreso de Lenguas y Culturas Paleohispanicas (Valencia, octubre de 2012) [in press].

Lakarra, J. A. In progress-a. Mas sobre dentales iniciales. Ms. UPV/EHU.

Lakarra, J. A. In progress-b. Para la reconstrucci6n del verbo protovasco: Irregularidades

radicales y antiguas extensiones a la izquierda. Ms. UPV/EHU. Lakarra, J. A. In progress-c. Forma can6nica y reconstrucci6n: 800 etimologias y

subiendo. Ms. UPV/EHU.

144

JOSEBA A. LAKARRA

Lakarra, J. A. In progress-d. Bostgarren, seigarren eta zazpigarren /h/-az. Ms. UPV/EHU. Lakarra, J. A. In progress-e. Retrotrayendo gramaticalizaciones: Ley de Trask, ablativos

y adjetivos/verbos en -til-di, comparativos en -so(+ oso), completivos en -tal-do(+ ora), causativos y otros compafieros de viaje. In: Ms. UPV/EHU.

Lakarra, J. A. & I. Ruiz Arzalluz (eds.). 2011. Obras Completas de Luis Michelena. Supplements of ASJU. 15 vols. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.

Lakarra, J. A., J. Gorrochategui & B. Urgell (eds.). 2011. 2nd Conference ofthe Luis Michelena Chair - "Koldo Mitxelena" Katedraren If Biltzarra - If Congreso de la Catedra "Koldo Mitxelena ", Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV/EHU.

Lakarra, J. A. & J. I. Hualde. 2006. Studies in Basque and Historical linguistics in memory ofR. L. Trask. Bilbao: UPV/EHU (= ASJU 40:1-2).

Lamberterie, Ch. de. 1998. Methode comparative et approche typologique: Regards croises sur les deux disciplines. La Linguistique 34, 18-37.

Lass, R. 1993. How real(ist) are reconstructions? In: Jones (ed.), 156-189. Lass, R. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P. Lehmann, W. P. 1987. Linguistic and archaeological data for handbooks of proto-

languages. In: Skomal & Polome (eds.), 72-87. Lehmann, W. P. (ed.). 1990. Language typology 1987: Systematic balance in language.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lipi.6.ski, E. 1997. Semitic languages: Outline of a comparative grammar. Leuven:

Peeters (= Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 80). Loewen, J. A. 1970. Spanish loanwords in Waunana. IJAL 26, 330-344. Magni, E. 1998. (Review) R. Lass, Historical linguistics and language change. Archivio

Glottologico Italian a 73, 96-110. Manterola, J. 2006. -a euskal artikulu definituaren gainean zenbait ohar. In: Lakarra &

Hualde ( eds. ), 651-67 6. Manterola, J. 2009a. Euskarazko artikuluak Erdi Aroko agiri bilduma batean. Oihenart

23, 371-379. Manterola, J. 2009b. Is Basque an agglutinative language? TINT A 9, 88-108. Markey, T. L. & J. A. C. Greppin (eds.). 1990. When worlds collide: Indo-Europeans

and Pre-Indo-Europeans. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Martinet, A. 1950. De la sonorisation des occlusives initiales en basque. Word 6, 224-233. Martinet, A. (ed.). 1968. Le langage. Bruges: Gallimard. Martinet, A. 1974. Economia de Ios cambiosfoneticos. Madrid: Gredos [French original

1955]. Martinez Areta, M. 2004. El acento protovasco. ASJU 38, 135-206. Martinez Areta, M. 2006. El consonantismo protovasco. UPV/EHU [PhD Tesis]. Martinez Areta, M. 2008. Hitz-konposakera euskaraz eta aitzineuskaraz. ASJU37, 1-84. Martinez Areta, M. & M. Padilla (eds.). 2012. Basque and Proto-Basque: Materials for

a Historical Grammar. Peter Lang [in press]. Martinez Ilarduiako, A. 1998. Euskal zibilizazioa. Donostia: Gaiak. Matisoff, J. 1990. On megalocomparison. Language 66, 106-120. McGinn, R. (ed.). 1988. Studies in Austronesian linguistics, Southeast Asia Series 76.

Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for International Studies. McMahon, A. M. S. & R. McMahon. 1995. Linguistics, genetics and archaeology: In­

ternal and external evidence in the Amerind controversy. Transactions of the Philo­logical Society 93, 125-225.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROTO-BASQUE

Meillet, A. 1918-1919. Les parentes de langues. BSL 21, 9-15. Meillet, A. 1921-1936. Linguistique historique et linguistique generale. 2 vols. Paris:

Klincksieck. Meillet, A. 1925. La methode comparative en linguistique historique. Paris 1970. Melena, J. L. (ed.). Symbolae L. Mitxelena Septvagenario Oblatae. 2 vols. Vitoria-

Gasteiz: UPV/EHU. Menendez Pidal, R. 1952. Toponimiaprerromimica hispimica. Madrid: Gredos. Miller, W. R. 1959-1960. Spanish loanwords in Acoma. IJAL 25, 147-153; 26, 41-49. Mitxelena, K. 1950. De etimologia vasca. Reed. in: SHLV, 439-444. Mitxelena, K. 1951. La sonorizaci6n de las oclusivas iniciales: A prop6sito de un im­

portante articulo de A. Martinet. Reed. in: SHLV, 203-211. Mitxelena, K. 1953a. (Review) Vocabulario del Refranero vizcaino de 1596. Reed. in:

SHLV 409-410. Mitxelena, K. 1953b. (Review) J. Hubschmid, Sardische Studien. Boletin de la Real So­

ciedad Vascongada de Amigos del Pais 9, 4 79-483. Mitxelena, K. 1953c. (Review) J. Hubschmid, Pyrenaenworter vorromanischen Ur­

sprungs und das vorromanische Substrat der Alpen. Boletin de la Real Sociedad Vas­congada de Amigos del Pais I 0, 565-570.

Mitxelena, K. 1954. De onomastica aquitana. Reed. in: LH, 409-445. Mitxelena, K. 1956. Sobre Jungemann, F.: La teoria del sustrato y !os dialectos hispano-

romances y gascones. Reed. in: LH, 310-320. Mitxelena, K. 1957a. Las antiguas consonantes vascas. Reed. in: SHLV, 166-189. Mitxelena, K. 1957b. Basque et roman. Reed. in: SHLV, 107-115. Mitxelena, K. 1957-1958. Apropos de !'accent basque. Reed. in: SHLV, 220-239. Mitxelena, K. 1958. Notes sur les elements romans du basque. Reed. in: SHLV I, 116-

120. Mitxelena, K. 1962-1963. Los nombres indigenas de la inscripci6n hispano-romana de

Lerga (Navarra). Reed. in: LH, 446-457. Mitxelena, K. 1963. Lenguas y protolenguas. Reed. in: Supplements of ASJU 20,

Donostia-San Sebastian 1990. Mitxelena, K. 1964a. Sabre el pasado de la lengua vasca. Donostia-San Sebastian.

Reed. in: SHLV, 1-73. Mitxelena, K. 1964b. Textos arcaicos vascos. Reed. in: Supplements of ASJU 11,

Donostia-San Sebastian, 1989. Mitxelena, K. 1966. La lengua vasca y la prehistoria. Reed. in: SHLV, 74--84. Mitxelena, K. 1967. (Review) J. Hubschmid, Thesaurus Praeromanicus ll. Reed. in:

LH, 321-328. Mitxelena, K. 1968. L'euskaro-caucasien. Reed. in: LH, 458-475. Mitxelena, K. 1970. Estudio sabre las fuentes del diccionario de Azkue. Bilbao: Centro

de Estudios Hist6ricos. Mitxelena, K. 1971. Toponimia, lexico y gramatica. Reed. in: PT, 141-167. Mitxelena, K. 1973. Apellidos vascos. 3th ed. Donostia-San Sebastian 1989. Mitxelena, K. 1974. El elemento latino-romanico en la lengua vasca. Reed. in: PT,

195-219. Mitxelena, K. 1976. La fragmentaci6n dialectal: conocimientos y conjeturas. Reed. in:

LH, 73-85.

145

146

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

Mitxelena, K. 1977 [1961]. Fonetica hist6rica vasca. 2th ed. Supplements of ASJU 4, Donostia-San Sebastian.

Mitxelena, K. 1979. La langue ibere. Reed. in: LH, 341-356. Mitxelena, K. 1981. Lengua comun y dialectos vascos. Reed. in: PT, 35-55. Mitxelena, K. 1985. Lengua e historia [= LH]. Madrid: Paraninfo. Mitxelena, K. 1987. Palabras y textos [=PT]. Ed. by J. Gorrochategui. Bilbao: UPV/

EHU. Mitxelena, K. 1987-. OEH = Orotariko euskal hiztegia- Diccionario general vasco.

Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia. Mitxelena, K. 1988. Sabre historia de la lengua vasca [= SHLV]. 2 vols. Ed. by J. A.

Lakarra. Supplements of ASJU 10, Donostia-San Sebastian. Morvan, M. 1996. Les origines linguistiques du basque. Bordeaux: Presses Universi­

taires de Bordeaux. Morvan, M. 1997. Problemes de substrat (suite). Lapurdum 2, 23-27. Moscati, S. 1964. An introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic lan­

guages. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Nothoffer, R. A. 1990. (Review-article) R. A. Blust, Austronesian root theory, Oceanic

Linguistics 29, 132-152. Oroz, F. 1981. La relaci6n entre el vasco y el iberico desde el punto de vista de la teoria

del sustrato. Iker 1, 241-256. Orpustan, J.-B. ( ed.). 1994. La langue basque parmi les autres. Influences et comparai­

sons. Izpegi: Baigorri. Polome, E. C. 1982a. Language, society and paleoculture. Ed. by A. S. Dil. Stanford:

Stanford U. P. Polome, E. C. 1982b. Lexical data and cultural contacts: A critique of the study of pre­

historic isoglosses and borrowings. In: Polome 1982a, 353-364. Polome, E. C. 1990a. The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe: The linguistic ev­

idence. JIES 18,331-338. Polome, E. C. (ed.). 1990b. Research guide on language change, Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter. Polome, E. C. & W. Winter. 1992 (eds.). Reconstructing languages and cultures. Ber­

lin: Mouton de Gruyter. Potet, 1.-P. G. 1995. Tagalog monosyllabic roots. Oceanic Linguistics 34, 345-374. Quilis, A. 1980. Le sort de l'Espagnol aux Philippines: un probleme de langues en con­

tact. Revue de Linguistique Romane 44, 82-107. Quintanilla, A. 1998. Estudios defonologia iberica. Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPVIEHU. Ramat, A. G. & P. Ramat (eds.). 1995. Las lenguas indoeuropeas. Madrid: Catedra [Italian

original ed. 1993]. Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo-European origins.

London: Cape [Spanish translation. Barcelona: Critica 1990]. Renfrew, C. 1992. Archaeology, genetics and linguistic diversity. Man 27,445-478. Renfrew, C., A. McMahon & L. Trask (eds.). 2000. Time depth in historical linguistics.

2 lib. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Renfrew, C. & D. Nettle (eds.). 1999. Nostratic: Examining a linguistic macrofamily.

Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Richardson, J. H. et al. ( eds.). 1983. Papers from the Parasession of the Interplay of

phonology, morphology and syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

Roman del Cerro, J. L. 1990. El desciframiento de la lengua iberica en 'La ofrenda de los Pueblos '. Alicante. Aguaclara.

Roman del Cerro, J. L. 1993. El origen iberico de la lengua vasca. Alicante: Aguaclara. Ruhlen, M. 1994a. On the origin of languages: Studies in linguistic taxonomy. Stan­

ford: Stanford U. P. Ruhlen, M. 1994b. The origin of language: Stracing the evolution of the mother tongue

Stanford: Stanford U. P. Ruhlen, M. & J. Bengtson. 1994. Global etymologies. In: Ruhlen 1994a, 277-336. Sagama, A., J. A. Lakarra & P. Salaberri ( eds.). 2011. Pirineoetako hizkuntzak. Lehena

eta oraina. Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia (= Iker 26). Sagart, L. 1999. The roots of Old Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Salmons, J. C. 1992. Northwest Indo-European vocabulary and substrate phonology. In:

Studies in honor of Edgard C. Polo me. JIES Monograph. Virginia, 11, 265-279. Salmons, J. C. & B. D. Joseph (eds.). 1998. Nostratic: Sifting the evidence. Amsterdam:

John Benjamins. Sarasola, I. 1984-1995. Hauta-lanerako euskal hiztegia. Don ostia: Gipuzkoako Kutxa. Satnlstegui, J. M. 1997-1999. Informaci6n magisterial en la correspondencia de Holmer

y Mitxelena (1951-76). Fontes Linguae Vasconum 29, 241-264 and 34, 323-352. Sauvageot, A. 1929. L 'emploi del 'article en gotique. Paris: Honore Champion. Schlerath, B. 1987. On the reality and status of a reconstructed language. JIES 15, 41--46. Schmid, W. P. 1987. Indo-European - Old European: On the reexamination of two

linguistic terms. In: Skomal & Polome (eds.), 322-338. Schmidt, K. H. 1987. The two Ancient Iberias from the linguistic point of view. In:

Gorrochategui et alii ( eds. ), 105-121. Schmidt, K. H. 1989. Principios y problemas de etimologia kartvelica. ASJU 23, 757-

768. Schmidt, K. H. 1992. Contributions from new data to the reconstruction of the proto­

language. In: Polome & Winter (eds.), 35-62. Schmitt, C. 1988a. Contribuciones a la lingiiistica evolutiva. Barcelona: Alfaguara. Schmitt, C. 1988b. La formaci6n del articulo en las lenguas romanicas. In: Schmitt

1988a, 11-53. Serbat, G. (ed.). 1984. E. Benveniste aujourd'hui: Actes du Colloque international du

C.N.R.S. I. Louvain: Ed. Peeters. Sims-Williams, P. 1998a. Celtomania and Celtoscepticism. Cambrian Medieval Celtic

Studies 36, 1-35. Sims-Williams, P. 1998b. Genetics, linguistics and prehistory: Thinking big and think­

ing straight. Antiquity 72, 505-527. Sims-Williams, P. 2012. Bronze- and iron-age celtic-speakers: What don't we know,

what can't we know, and what could we know? Language, genetics and archaeology in the twenty-first century. The Antiquaries Journal92, 1-23.

Skomal, S. N. & E. C. Polome (eds.). 1987. Proto-Indo-European: The archaeology of a linguistic problem: Studies in honor of Marija Gimbutas. Washington, DC: Inst. for the Study of Man.

Sola, J. (ed.). 1999. L 'obra de Joan Coromines: Cicle d'Estudi i homenatge. Sabadell: Fundaci6 Caixa de Sabadell.

Soto-Michelena, M. J. 1978-1979. El lexicon de Refranes y Sentencias de 1596. ASJU 12-13, 15-86.

147

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

Stassen L. 2000. AND languages and WITH languages. Linguistic Typology 4, 1-54. Stevens, C. M. 1992. The use and abuse of typology in comparative linguistics: An up­

date on the controversy. JIES 20, 45-58. Szemerenyi, 0. 1970. Introducci6n a la lingiiistica comparativa. Madrid: Gredos 1978

[translated from German]. Szemerenyi, 0. 1987. Scripta Minora. Vol. I-III. Ed. by J. P. Considine & J. T. Hooker.

Innsbruck. Tovar, A. 1950. El problema de Ios parentescos del vascuence. Reed. in: Tovar 1959a,

11-25. Tovar, A. 1952. Sobre la primitiva extension del vasco. Reed. in: 1959a, 88-95. Tovar, A. 1954a. El parentesco vasco-iberico. Reed. in: 1959a, 38-61. Tovar, A. 1954b. Linguistics and prehistory. Word 10, 333-350. Tovar, A. 1956. El problema de !as etimologias en vascuence. Reed. in: 1959a, 107-116. Tovar, A. 1959a. El euskera y sus parientes. Madrid: Minotauro. Tovar, A. 1959b. El vizcaino entre Ios dialectos vascos. Reed. in: 1959a, 146-177. Tovar, A. 1959c. Un ejemplo de etimologia vasco-caucasica. Reed. in: 1959a, 32-37. Tovar, A. 1962. Fonologia del iberico. In: Catalan (ed.), 171-181. Tovar, A. 1966. La lengua vasca en el mundo accidental preindoeuropeo (preguntas y

ocurrencias). In: AAVV. Problemas de la prehistoria y de la lingilistica vasca. Irufia­Pamplona.

Tovar, A. 1970. The Basque language and the Indo-European spread to the west. In: Cardona, Hoenigswald & Senn (eds.), 267-278.

Tovar, A. 1977. Comparaciones tipol6gicas del euskera. Euskera 22, 449-476. 148 Tovar, A. 1979. Vasco y lenguas caucasicas: Indicios tipol6gicos. Euskera 24, 13-33.

Tovar, A. 1980. Mitologia e ideologia sabre la lengua vasca. Madrid: Alianza. Tovar, A. 1981a. Comparaci6n: Lexico-estadistica y tipologia. Iker !, 139-166. Tovar, A. 198lb. Origenes del euskera: Parentescos, teorias diversas. In: ZZEE. Euskal

linguistika eta literatura: bide berriak. Bilbao, 7-56. Tovar, A. 1987. Lenguas y pueblos de la antigua Hispania: Lo que sabemos de nuestros

antepasados prehist6ricos. In: Gorrochategui et alii (eds.), 15-34. Tovar, A. 1997. Estudios de tipologia lingilistica: Sobre el euskera, el espaiiol y otras

lenguas del Viejo y el Nuevo Mundo. Ed. by J. Bustamante. Madrid: Istmo. Tovar, A. et alii. 1961. El metodo lexico-estadistico y su aplicaci6n a !as relaciones del

vascuence. Boletin de la Real Sociedad Vascongada de Amigos del Pais 17, 249-281. Trask, R. L. 1977. Historical syntax and Basque verbal morphology: Two hypotheses.

In: Douglass et alii (eds.), 203-217. Trask, R. L. 1985. On the reconstruction ofPre-Basque phonology. In: Melena (ed.), II,

885-891. Trask, R. L. 1990. The-n class of verbs in Basque. Transactions of the Philological So­

ciety 88, 111-128. Trask, R. L. 1995a. Origins and relatives of the Basque language: Review of the evi­

dence. In: Hualde, Lakarra & Trask (eds.), 65-99. Trask, R. L. 1995b. On the history of the non-finite verb forms in Basque. In: Hualde,

Lakarra & Trask (eds.), 207-234. Trask, R. L. 1996. Historical linguistics. London: Amold. Trask, R. L. 1997. The history of Basque. London: Routledge. Trask, R. L. 1998. The typological position of Basque: Then and now. Language Sci­

ences 20,313-324.

ON ANCIENT EUROPEAN AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PROT0-8ASQUE

Turrez, I., A. Arejita & C. Isasi (eds.). 1998. Studia Philologica in honorem Alfonso lrigoien. Bilbao: Univ. de Deusto.

Uhlenbeck, C. C. 1947a. La langue basque et la linguistique generale. Lingua I, 59-76. Uhlenbeck, C. C. 1947b [1942]. Les couches anciennes du vocabulaire basque. Eusko

Jakintza 1, 543-581. Unterrnann, J. 1981. La varieta linguistica nell 'Iberia preromana. Archivio Istituto Orien­

tate di Napoli 3, 15-35. Unterrnann, J. 1987. La gramatica de Ios plomos ibericos. In: Gorrochategui et alii

( eds.), 35-56. Unterrnann, J. 1999. Joan Coromines y la onomastica de la Hispania Antigua. In: Sola

(ed.), 183-192. Unterrnann, J. & F. Villar (eds.). 1993. Lengua y Cultura en la Hispania prerromana:

Aetas del V Coloquio sabre Lenguas y Culturas prerromanas de la Peninsula lberica. Salamanca: Ed. Universidad.

Valeri, V. 1987. Le sonanti iberiche. Archivio lstituto Orientate di Napoli 9, 269-286. Valeri, V. 1988. Ancora a proposito della comparazione basco-iberica. Archivio Istituto

Orientate di Napoli 10, 139-160. Valeri, V. 1993. Las nasales ibericas. In: Unterrnann & Villar (eds.), 739-746. Velaza, J. 1996. Epigrafia y lengua ibericas. Madrid: Arco libros. Vennemann, Th. 1974. Topics, subjects and word order: From SXV to SVX via TVX.

In: Anderson & Jones (eds.), I, 339-376. Vennemann, Th. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Vennemann, Th. 1993. Language change as language improvement. In: Jones (ed.), 149

319-344. Vennemann, Th. 1994. Linguistic reconstruction in the context of European Prehistory.

Transactions of the Philological Society 92, 215-284. Vennemann, Th. 1997. Some West Indo-European words of uncertain origin. In: Hickey

& Puppe1 (eds.), 879-908. Vennemann, Th. 1998. Etymology and phonotactics: Latin grandis vs. Basque handi

'big' and similar problems. JIES 26, 345-390. Vennemann, Th. 2003. Europa Vasconica- Europa Semitica. Ed. by P. N. A. Hanna.

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Vennemann, Th. 2006. "A satisfactory etymology has long been available": Notes on

Vasconic names outside the Basque country with particular references to some British Arn- and Earn- names and to German Arnoldsweiler. In: Lakarra & Hualde (eds.), 969-992.

Villar, F. 1990. Indo-europeens et Pre-indo-europeens dans la Peninsule Iberique. In: Markey & Greppin (eds.), 363-394.

Villar, F. 1991. Los indoeuropeos y Ios origenes de Europa. Madrid [2th ed. 1996]. Villar, F. 1993a. Termes, Tarraco, Turiasu: Dobletes con rlrr en la toponimia prerroma­

na hispana. Beitriige zur Namenforschung: Neue Folge 28, 301-339. Villar, F. 1993b. Indo-European /a/ and /o/ revisited. In: Brogyanyi & Lipp ( eds.), 139-

160. Villar, F. 1995a. Estudios de celtiberico y de toponimia prerromana. Salamanca: Ed.

Universidad. Villar, F. 1995b: Los top6nimos de la serie tur-. In: Villar 1995a, 199-244.

JOSE BA A. LAKARRA

Villar, F. 2005. Indoeuropeos y euskaldunes en el Pais Vasco y Navarra: Genes, lenguas y top6nimos. In: Villar & Prosper, 357-514.

Villar, F. & B. M. Prosper. 2005. Vascos, celtas e indoeuropeos: Genes y lenguas. Sa­lamanca: Ed. Universidad.

Villar, F. & J. D. EncamaQflO (eds.). 1996. La Hispania prerromana: Aetas del VI Colo­quio sabre lenguas y culturas prerromanas de la Peninsula Iberica. Salamanca: Univ. de Salamanca & Univ. de Coimbra.

Villar, F. & M. P. Femandez Alvarez ( eds.). 2001. Religion, lengua y cultura prerroma-nas de Hispania. Salamanca: Ed. Universidad.

Vine, B. 1991. Indo-European and Nostratic. Indogermanische Forschungen 96, 9-35. Vogt, H. 1940. La parente des langues caucasiques. Reed. in: 1988, 152-167. Vogt, H. 1955. Le basque et les langues caucasiques. Reed. in: 1988, 317-343. Vogt, H. 1988. Linguistique caucasienne et armeniene. Ed. by E. Hovdhaugen and F.

Thordarson. Oslo: Norwegian U. P. (= Studia Caucasologica II). Vovin, A. 1994. (Review-article) Long-distance relationships, reconstruction methodology,

and the origins of Japanese. Diachronica 11, 95-114. Vovin, A. 1998. Nostratic and Altaic. In: Salmons & Joseph (eds.), 257-270. Wang, W. S-Y. (ed.) 1995. The ancestry of the Chinese language. JChS Monog. Series

8. Berkeley. Watkins, C. 1984. L'apport d'Emile Benveniste a la grammaire comparee. In: Serbat

(ed.), 3-11. Watkins, C. 1990. Etymologies, equations, and comparanda: Types and values, and cri-

150 teria for judgment. In: Baldi (ed.), 289-304. Watkins, C. 1995. El proto-indoeuropeo. In: Ramat & Ramat (eds.), 57-114. Wilbur, T. H. 1980. The earliest stages of the successful resistance to Indo-Europeani-

zation of the Western Europe. JJES 8, 3-17. Wilbur, T. H. 1982. Basque origins. Journal of Basque Studies III:2, 5-27. Woudhuizen, F. G. 1991. Etruscan and Luwian. JIES 19, 133-150. Ylikoski, Jussi et al. (eds.). 2007. Samit. sanit, satnehamit: Riepmocala Pekka Sammal­

lahtii miessemanu 21. beaivve 2007. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilaincn Scura (= Suoma­lais-Ugrilaiscn Seuran Toimituksia = Memoires de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne 253).

Ylikoski et al. (ed.). 2009. The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society. Helsinki: Societe Finno-Ougrienne (= Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia = Memoires de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne 258).

Zimmer, S. 1988. On datting Proto-Indo-European: a call for honesty. JIES 16, 371-375. Zimmer, S. 1990. On Indo-Europeanization. JIES 18, 141-155. Zorc, R. D. 1990. The Austronesian monosyllabic root, radical or phonestheme. In:

Baldi (ed.), 175-194.