--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "gaztelupe1812" <gaztelupe1812@...> escribió:
>
> --- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" oalexandre@ escribió:
> >
> > Precisamente acaba de caer mis manos (previo pago de 30€) un
> > ejemplar del último libro de nuestro amigo Joan: "Los vínculos
> > europeos del sustrato íbero" (La Busca edicions), que pienso leer, y
> > si lo veo necesario comentar en esta lista y en mi blog.
> >
> > http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-los-vinculos-europeos-del-substrato-ib\
> > ero-substrato-en-el-catala-n-origen-del-vasco-relacion-con-el-paleosardo\
> > -y-el-georgiano-adstrato-celtoligur/2900001346312
>
> Ante todo, felicitar al autor que ha conseguido llevar a buen término la publicación de un libro que imagino, resumirá sus ideas respecto a algunos temas aparecidos en el foro, y que a mí, por mi ignorancia en asuntos de historia antigua, con toda seguridad me vendrá demasiado grande.
>
> Si te decides a hacer una reseña, será sin duda bienvenida.
>
Esta página está mejor: http://perso.wanadoo.es/dcasellas/labusca/biga/labiga29.html

Saludos

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> escribió:
>
>
> --- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "epicous" <epicous@> escribió:
> >
> > No considero que sea necesario tener una licenciatura para ser
> investigador serio o escritor de alguna materia.
> >
> Desde luego que no. Aunque que sea un poco "egoísta" hablar en
> primera persona, yo soy un ejemplo.
>
> Precisamente acaba de caer mis manos (previo pago de 30€) un
> ejemplar del último libro de nuestro amigo Joan: "Los vínculos
> europeos del sustrato íbero" (La Busca edicions), que pienso leer, y
> si lo veo necesario comentar en esta lista y en mi blog.
>
>
> http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-los-vinculos-europeos-del-substrato-ib\
> ero-substrato-en-el-catala-n-origen-del-vasco-relacion-con-el-paleosardo\
> -y-el-georgiano-adstrato-celtoligur/2900001346312
> <http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-los-vinculos-europeos-del-substrato-i\
> bero-substrato-en-el-catala-n-origen-del-vasco-relacion-con-el-paleosard\
> o-y-el-georgiano-adstrato-celtoligur/2900001346312>
>

Ante todo, felicitar al autor que ha conseguido llevar a buen término la
publicación de un libro que imagino, resumirá sus ideas respecto a algunos temas
aparecidos en el foro, y que a mí, por mi ignorancia en asuntos de historia
antigua, con toda seguridad me vendrá demasiado grande.

Si te decides a hacer una reseña, será sin duda bienvenida.

Respecto a lo tener o no tener una licenciatura para ser investigador serio...
pues según se mire. Se puede ser autodidacta, pero hace falta formación,
criterio, y mucha lectura. Pero no lectura de diccionario bilingüe de reputación
dudosa, si no de autores reconocidos e incluso también, por qué no, denostados,
pero siempre haciendo lecturas de conjunto. Y sobre todo, me parece que hay que
hacer un ejercicio de autocrítica constante: esto que se me ha ocurrido, con que
argumentos lo puedo derribar, y poner casi más empeño en derribar que en idear,
porque si no, es como esos que dicen: "ya sé que el jamón es mejor pero a mi me
gusta más el chopped".

Y que quede claro que esto no lo digo por nadie del foro en concreto, que os
conozco...

Un saludo.

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "epicous" <epicous@...> escribió:
>
> No considero que sea necesario tener una licenciatura para ser investigador serio o escritor de alguna materia.
>
Desde luego que no. Aunque que sea un poco "egoísta" hablar en primera persona, yo soy un ejemplo.

Precisamente acaba de caer mis manos (previo pago de 30€) un ejemplar del último libro de nuestro amigo Joan: "Los vínculos europeos del sustrato íbero" (La Busca edicions), que pienso leer, y si lo veo necesario comentar en esta lista y en mi blog.

http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-los-vinculos-europeos-del-substrato-ibero-substrato-en-el-catala-n-origen-del-vasco-relacion-con-el-paleosardo-y-el-georgiano-adstrato-celtoligur/2900001346312

No considero que sea necesario tener una licenciatura para ser investigador
serio o escritor de alguna materia.

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "Yehi Aor " <rosenkr@...> escribió:
>
> Hola, Rocío:
> Pues estamos buenos. En la segunda línea de tu mensaje dices que no
> vas a entrar en el terreno de las descalificaciones personales y
> luego no haces otra cosa que aplicar argumentos ad hominem, para
> acabar dando en parte la razón al tal Alonso... que acierta de
> chiripa, según tú.
> Vamos a ver:
> - Ser autodidacta, no es nada malo, como tú pareces mantener.
> Schliemann lo era, y otros muchos, forzados entre otras cosas, porque
> los profesores que hubieran poder tenido eran una cuadrilla de
> imbéciles y reaccionarios.
> - Evidentemente, no hace falta tener una cátedra para conocer el
> método científico. Después de todo su inventor, Descartes, no la
> tenía. Pero aún así, queda el detalle de que el otro co-autor del
> libro sí es catedrático. Vaya por dios, mujer.
> - No sé dónde ha nacido y se ha criado Alonso, pero en tus
> palabras "ni es euskaldún" me parece que se te ha escapado un poco el
> pequeño Arzallus que todos llevamos dentro. Champollion no era
> egipcio, ni Max Müller hindú, ni tantos y tantos. ¿O vas a negar la
> validez de la lingüística? Por otra parte, Federico Krutwig sí
> conocía el euskera mejor que la mayoría, y el griego, y muchas otras
> cosas, y también emparentaba el vasco con el guanche; y Caro Baroja
> gastó muchísimo de su tiempo estudiando a las poblaciones saharauis,
> mira que casualidad, caramba.
> En fin, no sigo. El libro de Arnáiz y Alonso es apasionante y bien
> fundado, aunque ofenda a los prejuicios de quienes pretenden que los
> vascos "no datan". Tiene hipótesis arriesgadas, como yo mismo dije en
> mi anterior mensaje, pero los autores avisan de ello antes de
> exponerlas. De todas formas, no es un dogma de fe, y sus enunciados
> se pueden debatir y rebatir, siempre siguiendo el método científico
> que tú tanto aprecias y tan poco has practicado en tu réplica. Ponte
> a ello y podremos pasar momentos muy interesantes intercambiando
> opiniones.
> Un saludo muy cordial
>
>
>
>
> --- In vardulia@egroups.com, rociocarter@n... wrote:
> > Hola, soy Rocio
> > Me gustaria hablaros del famoso jorge alonso.
> > Sin querer entrar en el terreno de las descalificaciones
> personales,
> > tengo que haceros saber que este pseudocientifico esta haciendo
> mucho
> > daño a la investigación, ya que ni es linguista, ni es
> > prehistoriador , ni historiador. Jorge alonso es un señor que
> estudio
> > la carrera de comercio y despues se lanzo de lleno a la
> investigacion
> > historica de manera totalmente autodidacta.
> > Ni es historiador, ni conoce el metodo cientifico, ni es euskaldun,
> > asi que como puede decir que mediante el vasco se pueden traducir
> > lenguas muertas como (¡atencion!): el etrusco, el minoico (lineal
> A),
> > el iberico, el tartesico, supongo que no tardara en decir que el
> > sumerio y, lo mas fuerte de todo ¡¡¡¡¡¡el egipcio de los
> > jeroglificos!!!!!!!!!! pero bueno!.
> > Luego los emparenta con el berebere y el guanche y se queda tan
> > ancho. Si algo no le concuerda, o no le sirve para su formula
> magica
> > de la traduccion, lo desecha y se lo calla y punto.
> > Lo peor es que asi, a base de intuicion y casualidades puede haber
> > dado con una hipotesis que no va desencaminada: el posible origen
> > remoto y comun de euskara primitivo e iberico y la continuidad de
> > toponimos de tipo vasco por cataluña y levante asi lo demuestran,
> > pero asegurar que son la misma lengua y que se puede traducir el
> > segundo a traves del primero, asi de golpe........
> > bueno, ya volvere con mas capitulos
> > gracias por vuestra atencion
> > besos rocio
>

Me decanto por origen norteafricano. Los beréberes tienen rasgos caucasoides.

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, donibane@... escribió:
>
> si los vascos e iberos tuvieron algo que ver, ¿cual de estas posibilidades os
parece mas idonea?:
>   1.expansion de los cazadores magdalenienses por el levante español
>   2.origen norteafricano de ambos pueblos
>   3.llegada durante el neolitico con los pueblos de la ceramica cardial
>   4.penetracion desde francia en dos ramas: la noroeste y la noreste y
levantina
>   5. que las migraciones de campos de urnas no fueran indoeuropeas sino
preindoeuropeas y vinieran empujadas por los indoeuropeos, lo que explicaria su
asentamiento en cataluña y levante
>   6.niguna de las anteriores
> Espero vuestras opiniones
>

Si que lo es. Gracias.

Trino.

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "gastigarra" <gastigarra@...> escribió:
>
> Una gran noticia para los interesados en la lengua vasca, Euskaltzaindia, esto
es, la Academia de la lengua vasca ha publicado en Internet el Diccionario
General Vasco. Iniciado por Mitxelena como una ampliación del de Azkue, pronto
se decidió por un proyecto más ambicioso, un diccionario que recogiera los
vocablos vascos apoyados por un importante número de ejemplos, extraídos de
numerosas obras. De hecho la referencia de las obras utilizadas ocupa 47
páginas. En total son 17 tomos, con más de 16.000 páginas de texto.
> La dirección de Internet:
http://www.euskaltzaindia.com/index.php?option=com_content&Itemid=343&catid=138&\
id=279&lang=es&view=article
>

Una gran noticia para los interesados en la lengua vasca, Euskaltzaindia, esto
es, la Academia de la lengua vasca ha publicado en Internet el Diccionario
General Vasco. Iniciado por Mitxelena como una ampliación del de Azkue, pronto
se decidió por un proyecto más ambicioso, un diccionario que recogiera los
vocablos vascos apoyados por un importante número de ejemplos, extraídos de
numerosas obras. De hecho la referencia de las obras utilizadas ocupa 47
páginas. En total son 17 tomos, con más de 16.000 páginas de texto.
La dirección de Internet:
http://www.euskaltzaindia.com/index.php?option=com_content&Itemid=343&catid=138&\
id=279&lang=es&view=article

Mis queridos contertulios,

Aprovecho la ocasión para comunicaros que he abierto el blog http://vasco-caucasian.blogspot.com/ para exponer y discutir mis teorías lingüísticas.

Saludos,

Octavià

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@...> escribió:
>
> I agree with you: IE might be fairly closely related to NEC, and I intend to explore this possibility in the near future.
>
> Let us suppose that pIE, pNEC and Basque all belong to a super-phylum, which we will call PhylumX for the moment. Also, I will not represent, for the sake of simplicity, the fact that other language families might belong to PhylumX as well.
>
> In theory, we might have several scenarios, including:
>
> PhylumX
> pIE
> Basque
> pNEC
>
> i.e. Basque is a daughter language of pIE, and pNEC is a sister language of pIE, or
>
> PhylumX
> pIE
> pNEC
> Basque
>
> i.e. Basque pIE and pNEC all are sister languages, belonging to PhylumX, or
>
> PhylumX
> pIE
> pNEC
> Basque
>
> i.e. Basque is a daughter language of pNEC, of which pIE is a sister language, or
>
> PhylumX
> pNEC
> pIE
> Basque
>
> i.e. both pIE and Basque are daughter languages of pNEC, etc.
>
> If I understood correctly, I'm rather in favor of the first scenario, and you are tentatively in favor of the last scenario.
>
> If any of these scenarios is correct, it can justify both Basque-IE isoglosses and Basque-NEC isoglosses.
>
The big problem is that not all the PIE lexicon is native, for there's a a great number of substrate/adstrate loanwords. Only after detecting all these (by means of external comparison) we could have able to stablish whose phylum does IE belong. Of course, this isn't precisely a simple task, but a very complicate one.

Another thing is that most of your etymologies don't hold. Basque can't be a daughter of PIE at any probability.

> I'm a big fan of Sergei Starostin's research (incl. NC, Altaic, Old Chinese).
>
He surely was a great linguist but not an error-free one.

> By the way, the URL you suggest, i.e. http://starling.rinet.ru/texts/iecauc.pdf does not seem to work (I get error message "Object not found").
>
Try this one: http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/iecauc.pdf

Octavià Alexandre

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@...> escribió:
>
> You mean, Basque might be a sister language of IE, not a daughter language?
>


Yes, as an hypothesis, it is conceivable after looking that core lexicon in
Basque does have relation with IE, but lexicostatistics might explain  at which
degree they could be... but this would be a work that i wouldn't be
capable/interested to assume.

I agree with you: IE might be fairly closely related to NEC, and I intend to
explore this possibility in the near future.

Let us suppose that pIE, pNEC and Basque all belong to a super-phylum, which we
will call PhylumX for the moment. Also, I will not represent, for the sake of
simplicity, the fact that other language families might belong to PhylumX as
well.

In theory, we might have several scenarios, including:

PhylumX
    pIE
       Basque
    pNEC

i.e. Basque is a daughter language of pIE, and pNEC is a sister language of pIE,
or

PhylumX
    pIE
    pNEC
    Basque

i.e. Basque pIE and pNEC all are sister languages, belonging to PhylumX, or

PhylumX
    pIE
    pNEC
       Basque

i.e. Basque is a daughter language of pNEC, of which pIE is a sister language,
or

PhylumX
    pNEC
       pIE
       Basque

i.e. both pIE and Basque are daughter languages of pNEC, etc.

If I understood correctly, I'm rather in favor of the first scenario, and you
are tentatively in favor of the last scenario.

If any of these scenarios is correct, it can justify both Basque-IE isoglosses
and Basque-NEC isoglosses.

I'm a big fan of Sergei Starostin's research (incl. NC, Altaic, Old Chinese).

By the way, the URL you suggest, i.e. http://starling.rinet.ru/texts/iecauc.pdf
does not seem to work (I get error message "Object not found").

Kindest regards

Gianfranco

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> escribió:
>
> >
> I'm considering the possibility, already pointed by Caucasian
> specialists like Colarusso (JIES) and Starostin
> (http://starling.rinet.ru/texts/iecauc.pdf
> <http://starling.rinet.ru/texts/iecauc.pdf> ) of IE being related to
> NEC. This would make IE an offspring of Vasco-Caucasian, hence the
> similarities observed between the two groups.
>

You mean, Basque might be a sister language of IE, not a daughter language?

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "reig_vidal" <reig_vidal@...> escribió:
>
>
>
> --- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@> escribió:
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand your question...
> >
> > --- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "reig_vidal" <reig_vidal@> escribió:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@> escribió:
> > > >
> > > > Let's use the following symbols:
> > > >
> > > > L  a given language
> > > >
> > > > F  a given family of languages
> > > >
> > > > TB  total number of words in L belonging to basic lexicon
> > > >
> > > > EB  number of basic-lexicon words in L which have an etymology in F
> > > >
> > > > <<  much smaller than
> > > >
> > > > >  larger than
> > > >
> > > > If EB << TB (i.e. if only a small portion of basic lexicon of L has an
etymology in F) then the more probable explanation is that those words were
borrowed by L from other languages belonging to F.
> > > >
> > > > But if EB / TB > 0.5 (roughly), i.e. if most of L's basic lexicon can be
derived from F, then the most probable explanation is that L belongs to F, and
this probability increases as EB/TB increases, because basic lexicon is more
resistant to borrowing than non-basic lexicon.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But with that, how you can distinguish between French from IE evolutions
from Semitic from Berber links ?...
> > >
> >
>
>
> How could you distinguish so between evolved languages from a given family
(Afroasiatic > coptic) from sister branches of Afroasiatic (Berber - Semitic) ?
>

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> escribió:
>
> Existe también la forma /pendoitz/ (AN, BN) 'precipicio', que
apunta
> a un pirenaico */pento-/ presente también en la forma diminutiva
> /pentoka/ (L, BN) 'colina, collado'. La presencia de /p-/ es típica
> de la fonética pirenaica, frente a */b-/ del proto-vasco: */bendi/
>
> /mendi/.
>
Debo añadir que /mendoitz/ es una forma exclusivamente bajo navarra,
aunque Azkue cita también el antiguo vizcaíno /mendotz/ 'colina,
collado'. La forma /pendoitz/ significa 'cuesta pendiente' en alto
navarro, baztanés, labortano y bajo navarro. Con el mismo significado
se registra en vizcaíno y guipuzcoano la forma /pendiz/,
sospechosamente parecida al catalán /pendís/ (retro-préstamo?).

Además de /pentoka/ existe también la forma guipuzcoana y
labortana /pendoka/ 'terreno costanero'.

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "gastigarra" <gastigarra@...> escribió:
>
> Mendoitz `talud' cuya parte inicial parece ser mendi `monte' podría
> estar relacionado de alguna manera con erroitz `precipicio'.
> Mendoza sí podría ser `mendi hotza', igual que Iturrioz es `fuente
> fría'. Si hay alguna otra etimología, que sea expuesta.
>
Existe también la forma /pendoitz/ (AN, BN) 'precipicio', que apunta a un pirenaico */pento-/ presente también en la forma diminutiva /pentoka/ (L, BN) 'colina, collado'. La presencia de /p-/ es típica de la fonética pirenaica, frente a */b-/ del proto-vasco: */bendi/ > /mendi/.

Posiblemente se trata de un préstamo céltico a partir de */kWantjo-/ 'colina plana' http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=\data\ie\celtic&text_recno=613&root=leiden, aunque tampoco hay que descartar que sea una raíz "boomerang" vasco-caucásica.

Me reafirmo también en mi postura anterior de que el sufijo /*-oitz/ en /mendoitz, pendoitz/, /erroitz/ (frente a /arro/) proviene del céltico */owkso-/ 'arriba' http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=\data\ie\celtic&text_recno=826&root=leiden

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@...> escribió:
>
> Yes, I know that the official theory is that Basque is a language
isolate.
>
> But I wondered if any of these Vasconists has expressed support for
the Caucasian theory.
>
No, the official position means nobody inside it support connections
between Basque and any other language.

With regard to your "statistical" formula, I insist on your comparing
Basque to several language families (IE, AA, NEC, etc.) and then draw
your own conclusions. Bengtson happened to chose NEC and so ignored
loanwords from other families. You made the same mistake with IE.

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@...> escribió:
>
>
>
> --- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "reig_vidal" <reig_vidal@> escribió:
> >
> After all, i feel that you have not answered the big question here: what was
done with "new" or "night" IE roots in Basque and to what is needed to comparate
"berri" and "gau" in pIE ? Or to change the question, there is any IE language
with such lexical anomalous/unkown derivation ?
> >
> I don't know the answer to your question, unfortunately. But I don't think
this is a big problem. On pages 97-99 of Mallory-Adams you have a list of
basic-vocabulary attestations in major IE groups: a lot of pIE roots are
attested in fewer than 8 out of 12 groups. For instance, *nekwt- 'night' is not
attested in Armenian and Iranian, and *newos 'new' is not attested in Albanian
and Armenian. Maybe they were lost in Basque as well, or maybe they originated
words which I did not include in my basic lexicon list, and hence did not
examine.
>
> As for berri and gau, I wish I had found an IE etymology, but I couldn't. They
surely cannot be derived from newos and nekwt-!
>


But you get the problem, Armenian and Iranian have not the *newos, but they have
the *nekwt-, the contrary for the other pair, and that with two cases only, if
you deal with a set of 10 random roots instead of 2, the possibilities to get a
given 100% fail as could do Basque, how would be it inside the IE languages...?
So this a big problem, the road to connect Basque and pIE it's difficult to see
to me.

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@...> escribió:
>
> Sorry, I don't understand your question...
>
> --- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "reig_vidal" <reig_vidal@> escribió:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@> escribió:
> > >
> > > Let's use the following symbols:
> > >
> > > L  a given language
> > >
> > > F  a given family of languages
> > >
> > > TB  total number of words in L belonging to basic lexicon
> > >
> > > EB  number of basic-lexicon words in L which have an etymology in F
> > >
> > > <<  much smaller than
> > >
> > > >  larger than
> > >
> > > If EB << TB (i.e. if only a small portion of basic lexicon of L has an
etymology in F) then the more probable explanation is that those words were
borrowed by L from other languages belonging to F.
> > >
> > > But if EB / TB > 0.5 (roughly), i.e. if most of L's basic lexicon can be
derived from F, then the most probable explanation is that L belongs to F, and
this probability increases as EB/TB increases, because basic lexicon is more
resistant to borrowing than non-basic lexicon.
> > >
> >
> >
> > But with that, how you can distinguish between French from IE evolutions
from Semitic from Berber links ?...
> >
>


How could you distinguish so between evolved languages from a given family
(Afroasiatic > coptic) from sister branches of Afroasiatic (Berber - Semitic) ?

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "reig_vidal" <reig_vidal@...> escribió:
>
After all, i feel that you have not answered the big question here: what was
done with "new" or "night" IE roots in Basque and to what is needed to comparate
"berri" and "gau" in pIE ? Or to change the question, there is any IE language
with such lexical anomalous/unkown derivation ?
>
I don't know the answer to your question, unfortunately. But I don't think this
is a big problem. On pages 97-99 of Mallory-Adams you have a list of
basic-vocabulary attestations in major IE groups: a lot of pIE roots are
attested in fewer than 8 out of 12 groups. For instance, *nekwt- 'night' is not
attested in Armenian and Iranian, and *newos 'new' is not attested in Albanian
and Armenian. Maybe they were lost in Basque as well, or maybe they originated
words which I did not include in my basic lexicon list, and hence did not
examine.

As for berri and gau, I wish I had found an IE etymology, but I couldn't. They
surely cannot be derived from newos and nekwt-!

Sorry, I don't understand your question...

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "reig_vidal" <reig_vidal@...> escribió:
>
>
>
> --- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@> escribió:
> >
> > Let's use the following symbols:
> >
> > L  a given language
> >
> > F  a given family of languages
> >
> > TB  total number of words in L belonging to basic lexicon
> >
> > EB  number of basic-lexicon words in L which have an etymology in F
> >
> > <<  much smaller than
> >
> > >  larger than
> >
> > If EB << TB (i.e. if only a small portion of basic lexicon of L has an
etymology in F) then the more probable explanation is that those words were
borrowed by L from other languages belonging to F.
> >
> > But if EB / TB > 0.5 (roughly), i.e. if most of L's basic lexicon can be
derived from F, then the most probable explanation is that L belongs to F, and
this probability increases as EB/TB increases, because basic lexicon is more
resistant to borrowing than non-basic lexicon.
> >
>
>
> But with that, how you can distinguish between French from IE evolutions from
Semitic from Berber links ?...
>

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@...> escribió:
>
> Yes, I know that the official theory is that Basque is a language isolate.
>
> But I wondered if any of these Vasconists has expressed support for the
Caucasian theory.
>
> Does anyone in this discussion forum know?
>


That's better to be answered by member forum Octavià as he deals with such
theses; as far as i know all vascologists that have checked this case deny the
possibility or even they find failures (use of loanwords or bad roots in
comparanda); but there is a bunch outside vascology of people that have done it,
being nowadays John Bengtson who is developing it by publishing meterials:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bengtson

Nowadays, 90% vascologists stick on that Basque was spoken in its area since its
human colonization 40000 years ago, no matter which cute cultural changes had
the area involved, so, a bad thing to try to convince them that Basque has real
relations outside itself...

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "reig_vidal" <reig_vidal@...>
escribió:
>
> > 1b) "what about *tullo > zulo"
> > if tu > tsu has happened in Celtic languages as well, then this
might indeed be a loan; otherwise, in my chronologically arranged sound
laws, tu > tsu is one of the earliest phenomena, so the two words should
rather be considered cognates in my view (or maybe a very early loan in
your view)
> >
> Celtic loanwords in Catalan or Spanish keept /t-/ (toll, -toll-), the
process t- > z- is protoBasque and affected such loanword, and as this
is the most easy way to explain everything, then it's not a shared root;
if you wish to get reliable sound laws between Basque and IE you must
get all suspicious words and put them in "quarantaine"... otherwise you
are in danger to be deceived.
>
Basque /z-/ [s] is a dorso-dental fricative (lenis), generally the
result of a former affricate (fortis) *[ts] forbidden in initial
position by Mitxelena's laws. That is, this is a foreign sound adapted
to Proto-Basque fonotaxis (modern Basque can also have a post-alveolar
fricative /x/[s^] or affricate /tx/ [ts^] instead of /z-/).

From an etymological point of view, initial *[ts] can have several
origins, one of them being the evolution of a dental stop */t-/, as it's
observed in some loanwords. For example, Paleo-Ligurian */tsokka:/
'stump' gives Catalan /soca/, French /souche/ 'stump' and Spanish
/zoquete/ (diminutive) 'block of wood; dumb, stupid'. These forms
contrast with  Portuguese /tôco/, Spanish /tocón/ (augmentative)
'stump', which keep /t-/. The etymology is PNC */dwyq'(w)V:/ 'log,
stump'.

But native Basque has */t-/ > 0  by Martinet's laws (the stop is
retained in Pyrenaic and Iberian). See for example northern /tarte/vs.
standard /arte/ 'holm oak', Iberian /tautin/ vs. Aquitanian /hauten/,
etc.

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@...> escribió:
>
> --- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "reig_vidal" <reig_vidal@> escribió:
> >
> >> you must get previously the phonetic "natural" changes involved, and those
that you got come from a basis that is not so sure to me as you could think.
>
> Which specific sound changes in my theory do you consider innatural? so I can
compute which percentage of my etymologies depends on "innatural" (or less
obvious) sound changes ... thanks
>



No, no such thing said, your changes seem reasonable, i only stressed that such
changes must have a very strong basis inside the set of words checked.



> >
> >
> > > 1d) "too many phonetic changes involved"
> > >
> > > to each phoneme in each pIE reconstruction I applied all phonetic laws
that affect that phoneme, i.e. I did not intentionally choose to apply many laws
in some cases (to get a good match) and few laws in other cases; the simple
mecchanism is that some pIE roots have phonemes that change little (so you have
to apply few laws), while others have phonemes that underwent changes (so have
you apply many laws), but I tried very hard not arbitrarily choose which laws to
apply
> > >
> >
> >
> > I know, but in such way you increase exponentialy the possibilities to get a
match... it is not ?
> >
> You would be right if many of my sound laws were of the type A > B or C (i.e.
if one pIE sound could unconditionally become two or more Basque sounds): in
this case, you would have a combinatorial explosion of possible reflexes of one
same pIE root. But this is not the case: my sound rules (with very few
exceptions) are of the type A > B (possibly under surrounding conditions), so
you do not get a combinatorial explosion.
>


Not an explosion, but a you get big combinatory set even... So i go again at the
same place, clear/sure phonetic correspondeces are required to proceed so.



> There is one case, though, which may increase the likelihood of more random
matches: it is when I posit X > 0, i.e. the loss of a pIE phoneme. For a
discussion of the impact of such sound-loss rules, please read pages 4 and 5 of
file "IE and Basque - Introduction.pdf
> " in folder "Basque as Indo-European" in the "Archivos" section of this site
(it is a bit long to copy and paste here, but it may be worth reading).
>
>
> >
> > > 1e) "too [much] use of suffixes to aid matches"
> > >
> > > you're right, is is tempting to liberally add "extensions" to get a longer
match; whenever I used root extensions to get a better match, I searched for
other IE comparanda with the same extension and I listed such comparanda when
available; on the other hand, when I did not find any comparanda with the same
extension (as e.g. for esku) I explicitily wrote it in my comments (and usually
downgraded my etymology from "likely" to "tentative"); yet it is very probable
that I forgot to do this in all cases: please help spot specific suspicious
extensions that have no parallels in other IE languages: I'll be very grateful
for your help in this "cleansing"
> > >
> >
> >
> > This is another way that helps you to get matches, you can choose from a set
of suffixes, increasing so the possibilities, but to add such suffixes, after
seeying if they were used in other languages... it is needed first to stablish
without doubt that IE > Basque, otherwise we would get "artificial" matches
again; it's a circular problem.
> >
> I disagree. Suppose you start with a Basque word with a shape CVC-VC. If you
find no match at all, you have no etymology. If you find a match for its root
(CVC-) only, you have an etymology which explains only three-fifths, i.e. 60% of
your Basque word. But if you find a match for each phoneme , you etymologize
100% of the Basque word. So matching 100% of a word's phoneme is harder, hence
more probative, than matching just the root, I would say. Of course, this is
valid if you find other reflexes with the same extension in other IE languages
(like for argal), and so your etymology is strong. If you don't find a match for
the extension, you can only match "60%" of your word, and your etymology is
weaker (e.g. esku). By the way, due to your comment, I downgraded my etymology
for esku from "likely" to "tentative", exactly because I could not match the
extension with other IE reflexes.
> >


No, the way you use is right, OK, but to do that, you need to have first the IE
> Basque sured, otherwise somelse can use this system to clade berber with IE
after allowing "possible" paralel evolutions... giving that a feeling of succes
even. After all, i feel that you have not answered the big question here: what
was done with "new" or "night" IE roots in Basque and to what is needed to
comparate "berri" and "gau" in pIE ? Or to change the question, there is any IE
language with such lexical anomalous/unkown derivation ?

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@...> escribió:
>
> Let's use the following symbols:
>
> L  a given language
>
> F  a given family of languages
>
> TB  total number of words in L belonging to basic lexicon
>
> EB  number of basic-lexicon words in L which have an etymology in F
>
> <<  much smaller than
>
> >  larger than
>
> If EB << TB (i.e. if only a small portion of basic lexicon of L has an
etymology in F) then the more probable explanation is that those words were
borrowed by L from other languages belonging to F.
>
> But if EB / TB > 0.5 (roughly), i.e. if most of L's basic lexicon can be
derived from F, then the most probable explanation is that L belongs to F, and
this probability increases as EB/TB increases, because basic lexicon is more
resistant to borrowing than non-basic lexicon.
>


But with that, how you can distinguish between French from IE evolutions from
Semitic from Berber links ?...

Yes, I know that the official theory is that Basque is a language isolate.

But I wondered if any of these Vasconists has expressed support for the
Caucasian theory.

Does anyone in this discussion forum know?

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> escribió:
>
> --- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@> escribió:
> >
> > Hello everybody. I got the following list of Vasconists doing research
> in historical linguistics from Trask's 'The History of Basque':
> >
> > María Teresa Echenique Elizondo
> > Ricardo Gómez
> > Joaqín Gorrotxategui
> > Xabier Kintana
> > Joseba Lakarra
> > Luis Mari Mujika
> > Koldo Sainz
> > José María Sánchez Carrión
> > Koldo Zuazo
> > José Ignacio Lualde
> > Bernhard Hurch
> > Nils Holmer
> > Jan Brown
> > William Jacobsen
> >
> > Do you know which of them support the theory that Basque is akin to
> North Caucasian?
> >
> The official paradigm is an isolacionist one. That is, Basque is
> considered to be an insolate language.
>

Thank you for pointing out that all root extensions should be justified.

Since I found no other IE parallels (and no obvious internally productive Basque
extensions) to fully justify the extension of the following Basque words, I
decided to downgrade their etymologies from "likely" to "tentative" for the
moment:

baso
esku
ortzi
oste
zahar

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@...> escribió:
>
> --- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "reig_vidal" <reig_vidal@> escribió:
> >
> > > 1e) "too [much] use of suffixes to aid matches"
> > >
> > > you're right, is is tempting to liberally add "extensions" to get a longer
match; whenever I used root extensions to get a better match, I searched for
other IE comparanda with the same extension and I listed such comparanda when
available; on the other hand, when I did not find any comparanda with the same
extension (as e.g. for esku) I explicitily wrote it in my comments (and usually
downgraded my etymology from "likely" to "tentative"); yet it is very probable
that I forgot to do this in all cases: please help spot specific suspicious
extensions that have no parallels in other IE languages: I'll be very grateful
for your help in this "cleansing"
> > >
> >
> >
> > This is another way that helps you to get matches, you can choose from a set
of suffixes, increasing so the possibilities, but to add such suffixes, after
seeying if they were used in other languages... it is needed first to stablish
without doubt that IE > Basque, otherwise we would get "artificial" matches
again; it's a circular problem.
> >
> I disagree. Suppose you start with a Basque word with a shape CVC-VC. If you
find no match at all, you have no etymology. If you find a match for its root
(CVC-) only, you have an etymology which explains only three-fifths, i.e. 60% of
your Basque word. But if you find a match for each phoneme , you etymologize
100% of the Basque word. So matching 100% of a word's phoneme is harder, hence
more probative, than matching just the root, I would say. Of course, this is
valid if you find other reflexes with the same extension in other IE languages
(like for argal), and so your etymology is strong. If you don't find a match for
the extension, you can only match "60%" of your word, and your etymology is
weaker (e.g. esku). By the way, due to your comment, I downgraded my etymology
for esku from "likely" to "tentative", exactly because I could not match the
extension with other IE reflexes.
> >

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "giaforni" <giaforni@...> escribió:
>
> Hello everybody. I got the following list of Vasconists doing research
in historical linguistics from Trask's 'The History of Basque':
>
> María Teresa Echenique Elizondo
> Ricardo Gómez
> Joaqín Gorrotxategui
> Xabier Kintana
> Joseba Lakarra
> Luis Mari Mujika
> Koldo Sainz
> José María Sánchez Carrión
> Koldo Zuazo
> José Ignacio Lualde
> Bernhard Hurch
> Nils Holmer
> Jan Brown
> William Jacobsen
>
> Do you know which of them support the theory that Basque is akin to
North Caucasian?
>
The official paradigm is an isolacionist one. That is, Basque is
considered to be an insolate language.

--- En Bardulia@yahoogroups.com, "reig_vidal" <reig_vidal@...> escribió:
>
>> you must get previously the phonetic "natural" changes involved, and those
that you got come from a basis that is not so sure to me as you could think.

Which specific sound changes in my theory do you consider innatural? so I can
compute which percentage of my etymologies depends on "innatural" (or less
obvious) sound changes ... thanks

>
>
> > 1d) "too many phonetic changes involved"
> >
> > to each phoneme in each pIE reconstruction I applied all phonetic laws that
affect that phoneme, i.e. I did not intentionally choose to apply many laws in
some cases (to get a good match) and few laws in other cases; the simple
mecchanism is that some pIE roots have phonemes that change little (so you have
to apply few laws), while others have phonemes that underwent changes (so have
you apply many laws), but I tried very hard not arbitrarily choose which laws to
apply
> >
>
>
> I know, but in such way you increase exponentialy the possibilities to get a
match... it is not ?
>
You would be right if many of my sound laws were of the type A > B or C (i.e. if
one pIE sound could unconditionally become two or more Basque sounds): in this
case, you would have a combinatorial explosion of possible reflexes of one same
pIE root. But this is not the case: my sound rules (with very few exceptions)
are of the type A > B (possibly under surrounding conditions), so you do not get
a combinatorial explosion.

There is one case, though, which may increase the likelihood of more random
matches: it is when I posit X > 0, i.e. the loss of a pIE phoneme. For a
discussion of the impact of such sound-loss rules, please read pages 4 and 5 of
file "IE and Basque - Introduction.pdf
" in folder "Basque as Indo-European" in the "Archivos" section of this site (it
is a bit long to copy and paste here, but it may be worth reading).


>
> > 1e) "too [much] use of suffixes to aid matches"
> >
> > you're right, is is tempting to liberally add "extensions" to get a longer
match; whenever I used root extensions to get a better match, I searched for
other IE comparanda with the same extension and I listed such comparanda when
available; on the other hand, when I did not find any comparanda with the same
extension (as e.g. for esku) I explicitily wrote it in my comments (and usually
downgraded my etymology from "likely" to "tentative"); yet it is very probable
that I forgot to do this in all cases: please help spot specific suspicious
extensions that have no parallels in other IE languages: I'll be very grateful
for your help in this "cleansing"
> >
>
>
> This is another way that helps you to get matches, you can choose from a set
of suffixes, increasing so the possibilities, but to add such suffixes, after
seeying if they were used in other languages... it is needed first to stablish
without doubt that IE > Basque, otherwise we would get "artificial" matches
again; it's a circular problem.
>
I disagree. Suppose you start with a Basque word with a shape CVC-VC. If you
find no match at all, you have no etymology. If you find a match for its root
(CVC-) only, you have an etymology which explains only three-fifths, i.e. 60% of
your Basque word. But if you find a match for each phoneme , you etymologize
100% of the Basque word. So matching 100% of a word's phoneme is harder, hence
more probative, than matching just the root, I would say. Of course, this is
valid if you find other reflexes with the same extension in other IE languages
(like for argal), and so your etymology is strong. If you don't find a match for
the extension, you can only match "60%" of your word, and your etymology is
weaker (e.g. esku). By the way, due to your comment, I downgraded my etymology
for esku from "likely" to "tentative", exactly because I could not match the
extension with other IE reflexes.
>
>
>
> > 1f) "numerals and family lexicon can't be accepted by the difficulties they
offer usually"
> >
> > in a sense, I agree: you cannot base a genetic claim on numerals and family
lexicon only; numerals are often borrowed and may undergo irregular phonetic
changes (e.g. they can influence each other in pairs) and family lexicon may be
subject to "childspeak" universals, such as reduplication and a frequent usage
of stop+vowel or nasal+vowel syllable structure; yet if you are able to base a
claim of genetic affinity on OTHER areas of the lexicon, you may legitimately
compare numerals and family lexicon as well (this is usually done in
well-established families, such as IE, Uralic and Austronesian)
> >
>
>
> But then we stick in the same, you get such matches thinking as granted that
IE > Basque, but... you need to get by sure IE > Basque... it's another circular
problem then.
>
Yes, I agree: you should be able to prove that IE > Basque without using kinhsip
terms and numerals. Adding kinship terms and numerals only marginally increases
the likelihood of your theory, but is not as probative as other etymologies.

Hello everybody. I got the following list of Vasconists doing research in
historical linguistics from Trask's 'The History of Basque':

María Teresa Echenique Elizondo
Ricardo Gómez
Joaqín Gorrotxategui
Xabier Kintana
Joseba Lakarra
Luis Mari Mujika
Koldo Sainz
José María Sánchez Carrión
Koldo Zuazo
José Ignacio Lualde
Bernhard Hurch
Nils Holmer
Jan Brown
William Jacobsen

Do you know which of them support the theory that Basque is akin to North
Caucasian?

Let's use the following symbols:

L  a given language

F  a given family of languages

TB  total number of words in L belonging to basic lexicon

EB  number of basic-lexicon words in L which have an etymology in F

<<  much smaller than

>  larger than

If EB << TB (i.e. if only a small portion of basic lexicon of L has an etymology
in F) then the more probable explanation is that those words were borrowed by L
from other languages belonging to F.

But if EB / TB > 0.5 (roughly), i.e. if most of L's basic lexicon can be derived
from F, then the most probable explanation is that L belongs to F, and this
probability increases as EB/TB increases, because basic lexicon is more
resistant to borrowing than non-basic lexicon.