tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post3631510021325791330..comments2022-04-26T09:43:50.025+02:00Comments on Language Continuity: The Franco-Iberian refugeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-63420522705884845542010-06-17T16:55:04.064+02:002010-06-17T16:55:04.064+02:00You are apparently right about the H (it was just ...You are apparently right about the H (it was just the only inscription I could recall but now I checked and you're right, no K/G anyhow in place of H that I can see though) and you are of course right that I'm an amateur (that's for granted). <br /><br />However there are no Hs that I know of in the Veleia inscriptions and I'm each day more persuaded of their authenticity (and that's one of the reasons I have a bad vibe about how linguists overstate their beliefs, specially the ones of Gorrotxategi and Lakarra camarilla, who are lowly, unscientific and we could well say really evil).<br /><br />Additionally, I must say I'm not even a <b>native</b> speaker of Basque (for historical/political/family reasons, sadly enough). And I don't really dislike your Vasco-Caucasian pet theory, Octavià, even if I understand that connecting West and East Caucasian is problematic and controversial because of the most complicated sound system of the Western Caucasian family.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-22078973703651569682010-06-17T16:15:12.642+02:002010-06-17T16:15:12.642+02:00I know this "off-topic" discussion has b...I know this "off-topic" discussion has been going on for much long, so I hope Jesús will excuse me if I reply to you, Maju.<br /><br /><i>From what I know the Roman letter H is found in words like Aherbelts ("Aherbelts Deo"), that now would read as Akerbeltz (Black He-Goat, a well known symbol of good luck and protection, though satanized by Christians, and a manifestation of Goddess Mari per mythological tradition, along with red animals such as cows or rams).<br /><br />In any case that ancient H stands for today's K... and not the other way around.<br /></i><br />By no means. You actually chose the ONLY exception to the correspondence between "Aquitanian" <b>h</b> and Basque <b>h</b>. This apparent exception has an explanation, although I can't go into details now and here.<br /><br /><i>Linguistics, as the other humanities demand humility to be able to achieve something.</i><br /><br />As you've got no formal training on linguistics, your own vision of the subject (for example, confusing articles with "declensions") is simply amateurish (please don't get offended by this). <br /><br /><i>And anyhow, my Basque is surely much better than yours. ;)</i><br /><br />Sure, but being a native speaker not necessarily makes you a better linguist. BTW, you seem to have forgotten what you wrote on your last paragraph.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-72831943985583390982010-06-16T23:57:02.064+02:002010-06-16T23:57:02.064+02:00From what I know the Roman letter H is found in wo...From what I know the Roman letter H is found in words like Aherbelts ("Aherbelts Deo"), that now would read as Akerbeltz (Black He-Goat, a well known symbol of good luck and protection, though satanized by Christians, and a manifestation of Goddess Mari per mythological tradition, along with red animals such as cows or rams). <br /><br />From what I recall, the interpretation is that the transcription into Latin alphabet was slippery and phonetically imprecise, yet still recognizable. <br /><br />In any case that ancient H stands for today's K... and not the other way around.<br /><br />"... but I'm not so sure about the other two". <br /><br />I am sure. I've spent some long and nice time in Aezkoa, the westernmost of those three valleys. At best you can find people who speak Batua and maybe even who might want to revive the old Aezkoera based on records and such but most speak just Spanish. Sadly enough Aezkoera and the other two dialects you mentioned are pretty much dead. <br /><br />"I remind you recognized you aren't a linguist and thus incapable of keeping linguistic discussions".<br /><br />I said I did not want to be offensive but, sincerely, I doubt many linguists are able to keep linguistic discussions properly either. Linguistics is a very sloppy and difficult discipline and certainly not a science in the usual sense. Linguistics has the potential to produce interesting research but most linguists seem just too arrogant and stuck to authority to do what society expects from them, what they have been trained for. <br /><br />Linguistics, as the other humanities demand humility to be able to achieve something. <br /><br />And anyhow, my Basque is surely much better than yours. ;)<br /><br />Of course your proto-Vasco-Caucasian is surely better than me... but it can well just be an imaginary tongue. <br /><br />Paraphrasing <a href="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-to-do-fieldwork-on-proto-indo.html" rel="nofollow">April's issue of The Speculative Grammarian</a>:<br /><br /><i>How to do field work in Proto-Vasco-Caucasian.<br /><br />Step one: find a native speaker</i>.<br /><br />(There's no step two, of course). :)Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-64718472701932498422010-06-16T22:05:00.256+02:002010-06-16T22:05:00.256+02:00As far as I know, you are not a linguist either, a...As far as I know, you are not a linguist either, and in any case I think we've had enough of this endless discussion about Basque matters, which has become quite off-topic, so I would ask you both to stop it here before I use moderation. Thanks.Language Continuityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601672205935444428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-53767598790351768252010-06-16T21:55:05.276+02:002010-06-16T21:55:05.276+02:00Batua (standard Basque, an academic creation based...<i>Batua (standard Basque, an academic creation based on real dialects) chose to include "h" in many words to please the speakers of some Northern dialects but in most dialects and in Batua itself (main accent) it's as mute as in Spanish. It's a dialectal variant of foreign influence and surely not genuine proto-Basque.</i><br /><br />You're completeley wrong, Maju, because the <b>h</b> it's found on Aquitanian inscriptions, which correspond to the time of Proto-Basque.<br /><br /><i>If the abbreviations mean Aezkoa, Salazar and Roncal... then these dialects have been extinct for some time. Never heard before that anyone said gemen or kemen for hemen or anything of the like (kemen means vigor but that's a different story altogether).</i><br /><br />I'm sure Roncalese is now extinct, but I'm not so sure about the other two. And forms with initial velar are recorded in Basque dictionaries such as Azkue's.<br /><br /><i>My counter-hypothesis can of course be questioned but it's not really worse than yours, IMO.</i><br /><br />Not really, it doesn't make sense at all. I remind you recognized you aren't a linguist and thus incapable of keeping linguistic discussions.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-22610649085706595892010-06-16T13:48:13.295+02:002010-06-16T13:48:13.295+02:00"Sorry, but your counter-hypothesis doesn'..."Sorry, but your counter-hypothesis doesn't make any sense. I can't possibly see how such an "article" could became a demonstrative and the same time gain and /h/ and a /r/. It's simply absurd".<br /><br />I understand that the /h/ is recent Occitan influence. Most Basque dialects do not have /h/ at all, except in the conjugated verb 'zihoan/zihoazen' (3rd person simple past tense of 'joan': to go). <br /><br />Batua (standard Basque, an academic creation based on real dialects) chose to include "h" in many words to please the speakers of some Northern dialects but in most dialects and in Batua itself (main accent) it's as mute as in Spanish. It's a dialectal variant of foreign influence and surely not genuine proto-Basque.<br /><br />Forget about the letter h. <br /><br />I have no particular explanation for how har (pronounced ar normally) arose but guess it happened deep in the Paleolithic and that the why of such changes has been obscured by millennia of evolution. There are many other words and elements like that. <br /><br />Also, Spanish "aquel" seems a relatively innovative form in comparison with "este/ese", suggesting it's not as old (and most languages only have this/that distinction), so one can easily suspect that har/hura is as well the last to appear of the demonstrative triad, not the firts one, right?<br /><br />I really can't say but why would har be more ancient than the other demonstratives and why would it be chosen above this or proximal that to become the nominative declination? <br /><br />"On top of this, East Navarrese dialects (Aezk, S, R) have an initial velar k, g instead of h"<br /><br />If the abbreviations mean Aezkoa, Salazar and Roncal... then these dialects have been extinct for some time. Never heard before that anyone said gemen or kemen for hemen or anything of the like (kemen means vigor but that's a different story altogether). <br /><br />Kau, kori, kura... sounds funny but IMO unlikely. <br /><br />Gau, gori, gura... sounds even funnier because it actually means night, incandescent, desire. Sounds almost porn... ;D<br /><br />Guess that inquisitors were right when they thought mountain Basques were all lusty witches :p<br /><br />Seriously, if you change the null phoneme or /h/ by /k/ or /g/ in many cases you get totally differently meaning words. K/G may one have been the same phoneme but if you change this one by anything else, then it's the true confusion of languages, because phonemes are often most important in Basque, not just consonants, vowels too. <br /><br />Some other examples:<br /><br />Gor: deafening (very different from hor: proximal there)<br />Gar: flame (very different from har: several meanings, most commonly take)<br />Gari: wheat (different from hari: to there)<br />Gaitz: illness (different from haitz: rock)<br /><br />My counter-hypothesis can of course be questioned but it's not really worse than yours, IMO. <br /><br />"I won't go further this topic here, but I'm planning to write something on my blog".<br /><br />Cool. I'll take a look. :)Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-91496303183410251482010-06-15T22:40:58.475+02:002010-06-15T22:40:58.475+02:00This however does not seem to prove that your theo...<i>This however does not seem to prove that your theory is correct. It could be for example that it was the other way around, such as har (hura) (remote that, Sp. "aquel") and, why not, hau (this) deriving from some conjectural archaic article such as *a (or *ha).</i><br /><br />Sorry, but your counter-hypothesis doesn't make any sense. I can't possibly see how such an "article" could became a demonstrative and the same time gain and <b>/h/</b> and a <b>/r/</b>. It's simply absurd.<br /><br /><i>This would also allow to explain those words that use the alternative variant inclusive declension in -ok (potentially from an inclusive/proximal sing. article *o), which would be visible in demonstratives such as the already mentioned hau (<*ao - proximal "that", assuming that that was *a) and hori (true proximal that, "ese"), as well as the declensional root of hau which is curiously hon- (honi, hona), except in locatives, where all three demonstratives are irregular (hemen, hor, han).</i><br /><br />AFAIK, the article <b>-ok</b> (plural) comes from the MEDIAL deictic <b>hor</b> 'there' (=Spanish <b>allí</b>), also related to the MEDIAL demonstrative <b>hori</b>.<br /><br />You're right about the proximal demonstrative being "irregular", because the inflected forms of <b>haur</b> 'this' has been replaced by <b>hon-</b>.<br /><br />In fact, Basque has two set of demonstratives, of which IMHO one is native and the other one was borrowed from another language:<br /><br />PROXIMAL 1<br /><b>hau(r)</b> 'this'<br /><b>*hau-en:, *heu-en:</b> > <b>amen, hemen, heben</b> 'here'<br /><br />PROXIMAL 2<br /><b>hon-</b> 'this' (oblique stem) <br /><br />MEDIAL<br /><b>hor-i</b> 'that'<br /><b>hor</b> 'there'<br /><b>(h)ok</b> 'these ones' > article <b>-ok</b><br /><br />DISTAL<br /><b>ha(r)</b> 'that' > article <b>-a</b><br /><b>hura</b> 'that' < <b>*haur-har</b> <br /><b>han</b> 'there'<br /><br />On top of this, East Navarrese dialects (Aezk, S, R) have an initial velar <b>k, g</b> instead of <b>h</b><br /><br />I won't go further this topic here, but I'm planning to write something on my blog.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-85241850155977347632010-06-15T11:27:24.232+02:002010-06-15T11:27:24.232+02:00I understand perfectly the agglutinative nature of...I understand perfectly the agglutinative nature of Basque declensions and conjugations, specially the regular ones.<br /><br />This however does not seem to prove that your theory is correct. It could be for example that it was the other way around, such as har (hura) (remote that, Sp. "aquel") and, why not, hau (this) deriving from some conjectural archaic article such as *a (or *ha). <br /><br />This would also allow to explain those words that use the alternative variant inclusive declension in -ok (potentially from an inclusive/proximal sing. article *o), which would be visible in demonstratives such as the already mentioned hau (<*ao - proximal "that", assuming that that was *a) and h<b>o</b>ri (true proximal that, "ese"), as well as the declensional root of hau which is curiously hon- (honi, hona), except in locatives, where all three demonstratives are irregular (hemen, hor, han). <br /><br />Of course this hypothesis is just an ad-hoc one that I built up as counter-hypothesis for this discussion and I'm not the least sure it is correct or not. But sounds as good as yours if not much better. <br /><br />What I demand, again, is evidence of this evolution of articles into declensions (agglutinative or not) is proven with actual examples, as there are other agglutinative languages than Basque, which can be studied for this purpose. <br /><br />As for Latin declensions, I would not be the least surprised if it'd be argued that they are also agglutinatively formed (at least the 1st and 2nd ones are very obvious, considering gender differentiation in Latin and other IE languages) at some early stage of its evolution. As far as I can see all declensions and conjugations should have such agglutinative origins, just that they are lost in the random evolution of expansive languages, with their many instances of adult learning and creolization, while preserved best in the mother-to-child transmission of non-expansive languages such as Basque, where the intrinsic logic of the language is assimilated to the detail it really deserves by the young brains.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-85400437933005122552010-06-15T10:13:28.430+02:002010-06-15T10:13:28.430+02:00What I mean is that I understand the theory as you...<i>What I mean is that I understand the theory as you explained it first but I see absolutely no purpose to speculate about a hypothetical archaic article "har" when everything in Basque is declensive and, even to explain all other declensions, you have to say that that's because the hypothetical "article" was anyhow originally declined.<br /><br />IMO it needs to be demonstrated at least indirectly by pointing to other known languages in which articles have been lost in similar manner. The null hypothesis is that, as everything else is made of declensions/suffixes in Basque, -a/-ak is also a "natural" declension of unknown origin and that Basque never had articles as such, just declensions. <br /></i><br />Sorry, but I think you don't understand matters. <br /><br />The thing is Basque (unlike Latin, for example) is an <i>aglutinative</i> language, whose segments can be made of several lexical and grammatical units. That is, in bare (w/o article) nouns (eg. <b>Aitor</b>), the segment is NOUN + case suffix, while in determinated (w/ article) ones (e.g. <b>liburua</b>), the segment is NOUN + ARTICLE + case suffix.<br /><br />The Basque article is then POSTPOSED to nouns, and derives from the distal demonstrative <b>har</b>, reduced to <b>a</b> in its absolutive (NOR) form (Biscayan has still the demonstrative <b>a</b> 'there'). I'm affraid there's nothing hypothetical nor speculative here.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-28437537323136770462010-06-14T15:06:59.051+02:002010-06-14T15:06:59.051+02:00PS - I have been reading Rodríguez Ramos' mate...PS - I have been reading Rodríguez Ramos' materials since some years ago. Particularly because it's freely available online and he deals with Iberian, which is a most interesting subject. However I don't tend to agree with him too much and one of the reasons is that he seems inclined to think that the hypothetical Vasco-Iberian language family arrived somehow mysteriously in the Bronze Age, what is simply unbelievable on light of both non-liguistic and linguistic data.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-42110068875953838642010-06-14T15:03:53.280+02:002010-06-14T15:03:53.280+02:00Let's see, Octavià: we are getting a little tr...Let's see, Octavià: we are getting a little trapped in how each explains things with details and such, so I'm tempted to avoid examples from now on in this particular matter.<br /><br />What I mean is that I understand the theory as you explained it first but I see absolutely no purpose to speculate about a hypothetical archaic article "har" when everything in Basque is declensive and, even to explain all other declensions, you have to say that that's because the hypothetical "article" was anyhow originally declined. <br /><br />IMO it needs to be demonstrated at least indirectly by pointing to other known languages in which articles have been lost in similar manner. The null hypothesis is that, as everything else is made of declensions/suffixes in Basque, -a/-ak is also a "natural" declension of unknown origin and that Basque never had articles as such, just declensions. <br /><br />I need to confirm this is even possible at all from comparison with other languages. Otherwise I'd rather suspect that linguists ethno-biased by their own native languages with articles (product of creolization in the cases I know of) are projecting that ethnocentric bias into Basque unconsciously. <br /><br />If you tell me that the same process is known to have happened in, say, western Malay, northern Mandinga and a branch of Tupi-Guarani, and only then, I'd be prepared to accept this as not merely speculative but as likely. But if the phenomenon is not observed anywhere else, nor in Basque itself, then it's nothing but a conjecture. <br /><br />"I don't think this is so difficult to understand, even if you aren't a linguist (as you recognize yourself)".<br /><br />I don't want to offend but I think that a risk of Linguistics is to fall victim of its own increasingly complex theoretical constructs. Some reality check is always good. Just because the theory says something, that is not necessarily true. In fact, it means that it needs to be proven as much as possible.<br /><br />I am an enthusiastic reader of The Speculative Grammarian, it helps me laugh but also helps me remain highly cautious about theoretical linguistics.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-78594400301073380812010-06-14T13:59:50.052+02:002010-06-14T13:59:50.052+02:00As far as I know, saying that Iberian is a 'Va...<i>As far as I know, saying that Iberian is a 'Vascoid' language and talking about Iberian 'declensions' is outside the scientific discourse.</i><br /><br />I refer you to the existing literature on the subject. You might also visit Jesús Rodríguez Ramos' (one of the leading experts) webpage: http://www.webpersonal.net/jrr/indice.htmOctavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-24933979696126607922010-06-14T13:51:09.513+02:002010-06-14T13:51:09.513+02:00Anyone who has studied some Basque knows that the ...<i>Anyone who has studied some Basque knows that the declensions are named by the corresponding question particle (nor, nori, nork, noren, nora, nondik, etc.), as you can see there's no -a in these particles even if it may appear in other words (depending on ending vowel of the root, number).</i><br /><br />These are <i>mnemotechnic</i> words taken from the declension of the interrogative pronoun <b>nor</b> 'who'. Of course, it has no article, so it's no wonder there's no <b>-a</b> here.<br /><br /><i>That the demonstrative har also follows that rule is meaningless, as everything in Basque does.</i><br /><br />In any Basque grammar you can pick up the demonstrative <b>hura</b> 'that' < <b>*haur-har</b>, which has substituted the old <b>har</b> in the absolutive (NOR) form. The other forms are still the original ones: ergative (NORK) <b>har-k</b>, dative (NORI) <b>har-i</b> and so on. <br /><br /><i>It can't be 'Aitork' anyhow. If it ends in consonant it needs a vowel, so it'd be Aitorr-ek, Aitorr-i, Aitorr-aren(a), etc.</i><br /><br />Yes, you're right. I took this example to illustrate the declension of a bare (that is, without article) noun. <br /> <br /><i>You (or whoever is responsible of this idea) are exporting a concept, articles, to a language that does not have them (except demonstratives).</i><br /><br />Actually they exist, but you don't see them because they're integrated into noun declensions. The "proof" you're asking for is one can readily differentiate between <i>bare</i> nouns such as <b>Aitor</b> and <i>determined</i> ones like <b>liburua</b>.<br /><br />I don't think this is so difficult to understand, even if you aren't a linguist (as you recognize yourself).Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-797804360980008782010-06-14T12:41:22.796+02:002010-06-14T12:41:22.796+02:00"No, har-i is the inflected form of the demon..."No, har-i is the inflected form of the demonstrative (article). You can easily check this on any standard Basque grammar by looking at the demonstrative declensions".<br /><br />We're saying the same but with different conclusions. Anyone who has studied some Basque knows that the declensions are named by the corresponding question particle (nor, nori, nork, noren, nora, nondik, etc.), as you can see there's no -a in these particles even if it may appear in other words (depending on ending vowel of the root, number). <br /><br />That the demonstrative har also follows that rule is meaningless, as everything in Basque does. The only partial exception would be verbs, which anyhow also approach the rule with the complex synthetic grammar that has to include the nork (nom. tr.), nor (DO/nom. int.) and nori (IO) of the sentence (if they exist) within them. <br /><br />"In cases where no article is used (e.g. proper names), the declension is like this: Aitor (absolutive/nominative), Aitor-k (ergative), Aitor-i (dative) and so on".<br /><br />You (or whoever is responsible of this idea) are exporting a concept, articles, to a language that does not have them (except demonstratives). Latin does not have articles either and I never heard that Latin declensions have anything to do with them at origin. <br /><br />It can't be 'Aitork' anyhow. If it ends in consonant it needs a vowel, so it'd be Aitorr-ek, Aitorr-i, Aitorr-aren(a), etc. <br /><br />I would, and actually I do, demand proof in verified examples from other languages where this transition is attested. Would it be a phenomenon that has been detected in other languages with solidity, then I'd be prepared to accept that Basque declensions derive from "articles" but AFAIK that has never been observed, unlike the reverse trend.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-24848495309570772502010-06-14T12:18:22.468+02:002010-06-14T12:18:22.468+02:00...
"The LGM is by far the strongest source ......<br /><br />"The LGM is by far the strongest source of dicontinuity in every possible aspect of European prehistory, a real 'catastrophe', and not an invented one"...<br /><br />It was a gradual worsening of conditions. Anyhow there is now evidence of people living some parts of NW Europe in that period and they may well be the ones from which the Magdalenian techno-culture may have arisen ultimately. Because in that area Aurignacian (from which Magdalenian is clearly derived, though till recently it was not known how) survived for all the Middle UP period. No links here because I'm telling from memory. In any case, again, Dordogne appears to have been the center of the Magdalenian expansion as was mostly of the Solutrean one earlier (there's a story about Valencian Solutrean but comments sections are always short of space). <br /><br />A true sudden catastrophe did happen instead at the time of Aurignacian expansion and the demise of Neanderthals, c. 40 Ka ago: a supervolcano exploded <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campi_Flegrei" rel="nofollow">in Campania</a>, throwing rocks and ash to as far as Ukraine. <br /><br />In any case, the LGM alleged depopulation would only have affected the Rhine-Danube region, and not the FC region (not at all), which is rich in sites for this period. But probably some areas of Central/NW kept pockets of population (Moravia for example). <br /><br />"... like the incredible voyage of the PIE horse-riders".<br /><br />Not incredible at all, specially if you look at the archaeology in detail and understand it took several millennia (essentially all the time since c. 3500 BCE in Europe), had bursts of activity followed by long periods of stability, etc. Nobody claims that IE riders made all the way from the Volga to the Tagus in a few years; even taking over Central Europe and most of the Balcans took them about a thousand years if not more. In the process they became partly Europeans (culturally Danubized) and they did not always seem to have got the upper hand (at least in my opinion). Once they controlled all the Eastern 2/3 of Europe, taking the rest was relatively easy, I guess. But for a whole millennium after taking over the Balcano-Danubian zone (as well as Scandinavia), they remained quiet.<br /><br />Again, it's too complex to discuss here in depth, I fear. <br /><br />"... ad hoc pseudo-archaeological explanations".<br /><br />You can agree or not with Gimbutas but she was one of the greatest archaeologists of her time. Even Renfrew, who spouses a different theory, is also an archaeologist and worked with the Lithuanian in at least one occasion. <br /><br />We are talking here of genuine top quality archaeology and prehistorical reconstruction, no 'ad-hoc' nor pseudo-anything. However these people were interdisciplinary enough as to use the knowledge provided by linguistics and integrate it into their prehistoric work, which, agreed or not, I think is laudable.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-88823084805417670362010-06-14T12:18:22.467+02:002010-06-14T12:18:22.467+02:00"How do you do those things?"
With a bl..."How do you do those things?"<br /><br />With a blank map borrowed from somewhere (the contour and rivers are not my creation, of course) and a simple graphic program. I think I used MS Paint for those, now I'd use GIMP, that it's more powerful (but also somewhat more complicated to use). Of course, I used prehistory books and online sources to document the data (shorelines, archaeological sites). Just blended extant academic data into a new map that could be released to the public domain. Probably the exact sources are reported in the file, I can't recall. <br /><br /><i>Another important aspect to bear in mind is the whole set of coastal activities, including fishing and navigation, which very possibly served as a linking factor in the Atlantic façade from ancient times (how ancient? that's a good question)</i>.<br /><br />The coastline depicted in that and other maps I made seems to represent the lowest sea levels at the Last Glacial Maximum (c. 20,000 BP). By the Epipaleolithic (or 'Mesolithic') the coastline was very much like today. <br /><br />As you say well some of the greatest differences affected the area around Britain and the North Sea, with a somewhat mysterious land existing once in most of the North Sea and serving as land-bridge between the various coastal areas around it, a fact that is often reflected in archaeo-cultural links as well. <br /><br />Open Seas navigation is documented since the Cardium Pottery Neolithic, which have yielded deep water fish remains, however some sort of boats have also been discovered in peat bogs in Epipaleolithic Denmark, so it does seem that some sort of navigation existed before Neolithic. A fact ratified by the Magdalenian diet, rich in sea food per some research - what matches the curious proto-harpoons so typical of this culture and that resemble in design those used by the Inuit to hunt seals and sometimes even whales. Incidentally a recent revision of the materials used for bone points in Isturitz (Northern Basque Country, quite far from any coast) found that at least some were made of whale barbs, which apparently are optimal for such kind of weapons. <br /><br />References <a href="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/search?q=whale" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />"Is it really possible to know if an area is the heart of an archaeological 'culture'? And if so, what does that mean exactly?"<br /><br />That's necessarily a subjective evaluation, based largely on factors such as site density, likely origin of major cultures, etc. The more scientific approximation I can provide is <a href="http://www.ohll.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/pages/documents_Aussois_2005/pdf/Jean-Pierre_Bocquet-Appel.pdf" rel="nofollow">the statistical work of Boucquet-Appel</a> that certainly seems to prove that the FC region was all the time the most densely inhabited of Europe in the Paleolithic (by a wide margin). Within the FC region, Dordogne clearly shows a very unusual density of sites. <br /><br />This statistical approach can of course can only be used where archaeological work has been extensive and regionally equivalent but it is the case in Europe or most of it. It has also been used later <a href="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2009/12/demographics-of-central-north-european.html" rel="nofollow">to estimate changes in Neolithic demography</a> in Britain and Northern Europe, a very interesting matter. <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-16593016009059218172010-06-14T10:58:32.824+02:002010-06-14T10:58:32.824+02:00Iberian (a Vascoid language) declensions are quite...<i>Iberian (a Vascoid language) declensions are quite different from the Basque ones</i><br /><br />As far as I know, saying that Iberian is a 'Vascoid' language and talking about Iberian 'declensions' is outside the scientific discourse.<br /><br />I remember once I was in a conference about pre-Roman languages of the Iberian Peninsula. Someone had just presented a spectacular rendering of an Iberian text, full of Vasconic interpretations. When he finished, some of the scholars gave their opinions. Among them were some of the leading experts in the field, people who are really trying to ivestigate things in a coherent way, rather than promoting linguistic fantasies. When asked about his opinion, he just said: "I don't share your a priori assumptions". Full stop. No need for more words.Language Continuityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601672205935444428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-21920849269197234772010-06-14T10:47:02.392+02:002010-06-14T10:47:02.392+02:00Maju, thanks for your comments on the LGm maps of ...Maju, thanks for your comments on the LGm maps of western Europe. I didn't know you had made that Wikipedia map yourself! (How do you do those things?). <br /><br /><i>in the very map of Europe you posted that the continental platform of Iberia falls sharply and that means that the coast was not much farther away (a few kilometers) in most places</i><br /><br />This is true. The stretch of land is not very wide at that point, but the relevant thing is that it gets wider to the north, actuallly forming a land bridge uniting the British Isles to the continent.<br /><br />Another important aspect to bear in mind is the whole set of coastal activities, including fishing and navigation, which very possibly served as a linking factor in the Atlantic façade from ancient times (how ancient? that's a good question). This coastal front, most of it underwater today, could probably have been quite significant in terms of population, culture and language flow during the Mesolithic.<br /><br /><i>archaeologically, the FC region was the demographic and cultural heartland of Europe in the Paleolithic</i><br /><br />Is it really possible to know if an area is the heart of an archaeological 'culture'? And if so, what does that mean exactly?<br /><br /><i>more interest should be put in South French (Gascon, Occitan) peoples and very specially in the Dordogne area, which was the true heartland of the whole region, rather than the relatively backwater Basque subregion</i><br /><br />I agree with you, but the events connected with the LGM, which are still poorly understood, must necessarily be taken into account. The LGM is by far the strongest source of dicontinuity in every possible aspect of European prehistory, a real 'catastrophe', and not an invented one, like the incredible voyage of the PIE horse-riders. I think the LGM must be the starting point in any study of European linguistic prehistory. However, the agenda for historical linguistics has traditionally been set by linguistic reconstruction based on a corpus of extant written texts and an additional corpus of ad hoc pseudo-archaeological explanations.Language Continuityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601672205935444428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-87715778240250496522010-06-14T10:43:44.610+02:002010-06-14T10:43:44.610+02:00But still I fail to see the connection between the...<i>But still I fail to see the connection between the "artz" family of words for bear and the "xas" one. They don't seem related or at least I cannot see any evidence of such connection. In one case we have the structure vowel-R-strong consonant (consonantic group), essentially: *ARKT or *ARHT, the other is X-vowel-S.</i><br /><br />PIE <b>*H2</b> corresponds to a voiceless uvular fricative <b>X</b> (much like Spanish <b>/j/</b>). And the (affricate) sibilant is rendered in PIE by <b>*(t)k^</b>. Bearing these correspondences in mind, the evolution <b>*rs</b> > <b>*ʔs</b> (where <b>/ʔ/</b> is the glottalic stop) is particular of Yenisseian. <br /><br /><i>The only thing they have in common is that both are monosyllabic and mean furry carnivore of some sort (not even "bear" in the second group, for what I'm seeing)</i><br /><br />Yes, semantics seems somewhat loose, but this is typical of Eurasian Steppe Wanderwörter. For example, Balto-Slavic <b>*tlāk(ʷ)-</b> 'bear' is related to Altaic <b>*t`ule(kV)</b> 'fox; wolf' and Semitic <b>*dalak'/g- ~ *dVk'al-</b> 'marten; wild cat, lynx'.<br /><br /><i>I can't swallow that easily. I'd rather think that the "ha-ri" is as much part of the declension system since whenever the proto-Basque grammar was formed, probably not any time in the last few millennia.</i><br /><br />No, <b>har-i</b> is the inflected form of the demonstrative (article). You can easily check this on any standard Basque grammar by looking at the demonstrative declensions.<br /><br /><i>I find hard to think that declensions derive from mere articles/prepositions.</i><br /><br />I think you're confused on this. In Basque, when a noun incorporates the definite article (most cases), it automatically becames part of the declension. In cases where no article is used (e.g. proper names), the declension is like this: <b>Aitor</b> (absolutive/nominative), <b>Aitor-k</b> (ergative), <b>Aitor-i</b> (dative) and so on.<br /><br /><i>It's a nice simple hypothesis but can't be demonstrated for lack of knowledge and comparison of other Vascoid languages.</i><br /><br />No, it's demonstrated by internal evidence. But if you want to know, Iberian (a Vascoid language) declensions are quite different from the Basque ones.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-22732219978980855572010-06-14T04:58:57.631+02:002010-06-14T04:58:57.631+02:00Not only the Balto-Slavic and Germanic, but for wh...Not only the Balto-Slavic and Germanic, but for what I can see, also Indo-Iranian, which is always a must check in European linguistics and specially in making the claim that something is Indoeuropean and not a substrate areal shared term, right? <br /><br />Hindi bhaalo, bhālū (old good Disney's Baloo) should, if anything, be related to Germanic bear, björn... and Slavic medjev, etc. than to the SW European-Mediterraean arctos, hartz, ursus... However Persian, Romani and Pubjabi have words that vaguely resemple hartz (khers, richni, rich) - at least they have an R, though the Persian word is similar to the Finnic variant (see below), while the Punjabi seems quite evolved instead if not very different.<br /><br />Gaelic is also different from the "hartz" variant ('mathan') looking much like the Slavic one, while Welsh instead uses 'arh', clearly in the "hartz" group.<br /><br />And notice also Finnic 'karhu', that appears also in the line of "hartz", which logically is not borrowed from Balto-Slavic nor Germanic but has to be from other source, maybe an old local substrate. Other Uralic languages do not share this form but rather approach the Slavic variant, so it's probably not Uralic as such either. <br /><br />I would personally put this family of words along with the somewhat mainstream *khar (stone, cf. Basque 'harri') into a series that are likely to be pre-IE. But I acknowledge that it's hard to discern on light of the available evidence and the hyperdominance of Indoeuropean in all the area. <br /><br />"As I said on my blog, I'm skeptical about current reconstructions of macro-families such as "Nostratic" and "Dene-Caucasian""...<br /><br />I'll check you blog. :)<br /><br />"... although I also think there's some truth behind them".<br /><br />Maybe there's something. I'd seriously consider areal flows through the steppes and or the agricultural belt of South Central Asia, without this meaning phylogeny. <br /><br />But still I fail to see the connection between the "artz" family of words for bear and the "xas" one. They don't seem related or at least I cannot see any evidence of such connection. In one case we have the structure vowel-R-strong consonant (consonantic group), essentially: *ARKT or *ARHT, the other is X-vowel-S. The only thing they have in common is that both are monosyllabic and mean furry carnivore of some sort (not even "bear" in the second group, for what I'm seeing). <br /><br />My Occam's Razor says: "cut!"<br /><br />"You must also be aware PIE itself has lots of Neolithic loanwords from some Vasco-Caucasian language. Also language families such as Celtic and Germanic have a Vasco-Caucasian substrate".<br /><br />That's exactly my point, I think. Even if I can only grasp some of the most evident signs of it, as I'm not linguist, not even amateur linguist. <br /><br />"You can find these answers in any Basque grammar. What happened is the old demonstrative (now an article) was declinated and then became part of the case suffixes (please remember that the /r/ of ha(r) is soft). For example: *mutil ha(r) > mutila (nominative), *mutil ha(r)k > mutilak (ergative), *mutil hari > mutilari (dative), and so on".<br /><br />I can't swallow that easily. I'd rather think that the "ha-ri" is as much part of the declension system since whenever the proto-Basque grammar was formed, probably not any time in the last few millennia. <br /><br />It's a nice simple hypothesis but can't be demonstrated for lack of knowledge and comparison of other Vascoid languages. As I said before I'd need at least to see that process demonstrated in some other language (unrelated but similar in this). I find hard to think that declensions derive from mere articles/prepositions.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-81543989002801003432010-06-13T11:47:37.480+02:002010-06-13T11:47:37.480+02:00What can I say? The Basque declension system is hi...<i>What can I say? The Basque declension system is highly extensive (many cases). It's not just -a/-ak/-ek. Also I find unlikely that articles would easily become declensions, do you know of any other case at all?<br /></i><br />You can find these answers in any Basque grammar. What happened is the old demonstrative (now an article) was declinated and then became part of the case suffixes (please remember that the <b>/r/</b> of <b>ha(r)</b> is soft). For example: <b>*mutil ha(r)</b> > <b>mutila</b> (nominative), <b>*mutil ha(r)k</b> > <b>mutilak</b> (ergative), <b>*mutil hari</b> > <b>mutilari</b> (dative), and so on.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-52705962500042840292010-06-12T23:27:50.854+02:002010-06-12T23:27:50.854+02:00You're right with regard to Basque hartz '...You're right with regard to Basque <b>hartz</b> 'bear', which is an IE loanword from PIE <b>*H2rºtk´o-</b> 'bear' (interestingly enough, Balto-Slavic and Germanic have unrelated words for 'bear'). This is one of the countless blunders made by Bengtson. <br /><br />But on the other hand, he opened my mind to discover long-range relatives of the IE word. On the one hand, we've got PNC <b>*XHVr[tS']V</b> 'marten; otter', whose sibilant affricate is reflected in PIE as the cluster <b>*tk´</b>. Then we've got Altaic <b>*karsi</b> 'fox, marten', with a velar reflex of the initial uvular. And finally, there's Yenisseian <b>*Xa(?)s (~ k-)</b> 'badger'. A nice case for a Wanderwort.<br /><br />As I said on my blog, I'm skeptical about current reconstructions of macro-families such as "Nostratic" and "Dene-Caucasian", although I also think there's some truth behind them. This is why I'm using the term "Paleo-Eurasian" to describe a hypothetical macro-family whose possible members are IE, Altaic and some extinct European substrate languages spoken by Mesolithic hunters-gatherers, Possibly Kartvelian also belongs here, althoug I'm not sure. And definitely Uralic isn't a close relative of IE.<br /><br />You must also be aware PIE itself has lots of Neolithic loanwords from some Vasco-Caucasian language. Also language families such as Celtic and Germanic have a Vasco-Caucasian substrate. My view is that Vasco-Caucasian languages spread along with agriculture <i>à la</i> Renfrew.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-25480245138623793452010-06-12T17:59:37.484+02:002010-06-12T17:59:37.484+02:00Btw, Octavia, I'm reading right now Bengtson&#...Btw, Octavia, I'm reading right now Bengtson's paper on Dene-Caucasian and Basque and, while some comparisons, specially with Caucasian (PEC) may stand, others are absolutely unbelievable.<br /><br />For example, does not Basque (H)ARTZ (bear) relate better with Greek ARCTOS (seems almost the same word) or even Latin URSUS, both meaning also bear, than with:<br /><br />"Chechen 7ešt ‘otter’, Dargwa ::arc! ‘marten, squirrel’, etc. (NCED 1073); PY *»a(€)s ‘badger’; Na-Dene: cf. Haida (Alaskan) xúuc ‘brown bear, grizzly bear’, Tlingit xúuc id."<br /><br />??<br /><br />Excepting Dargwa "::arc!", all the others seem totally unrelated (they don't even have the key consonant R!). I think I can easily discard many others like these. <br /><br />(Shaking my head in disbelief)Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-89028656199175417112010-06-12T17:37:17.928+02:002010-06-12T17:37:17.928+02:00What can I say? The Basque declension system is hi...What can I say? The Basque declension system is highly extensive (many cases). It's not just -a/-ak/-ek. Also I find unlikely that articles would easily become declensions, do you know of any other case at all?<br /><br />I can understand how creolization can cause the dropping of declension (as happened with Romances), taking articles and prepositions to replace them, or even some aspects of verbal conjugation (as in English) but I cannot imagine why the opposite would ever happen. Because adding declensions is necessarily an increase in grammatical complexity. <br /><br />I forgot to add a link in the previous post but I found <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008559" rel="nofollow">this paper</a> most interesting, because it seems to demonstrate that unnecessary complexity is a trait of stable languages, while expansive languages tend to lose much of that, because of the differences between adult and children learning processes. <br /><br />So the relative complexity of Basque grammar (including declensions but also the extreme precision of verbs, which essentially synthesize all the sentence structure) should be an indication of stability and long-time mother-to-child transmission. How long? That I cannot say. <br /><br />Thanks for the links. I'll take a look. I'm anyhow reluctant to accept any of those proposed macrofamilies. I don't think Nostratic has any clear basis and I have read many dismissing it as mere speculation. Indo-Uralic instead may be (alternatively sprachbund). It would also need of a cultural-prehistorical model to be explained and that doesn't look easy to claim. <br /><br />The infamous Sino-Dene-Caucasian has even worse reputation, and even more now that Na-Dene and Yenisean have been proven related (remember that Yenisean was once proposed as part of Nostratic). <br /><br />Linguistics apart, the main problem for the credibility of all these highly hypothetical superfamilies is that they don't even make sense in relation to anything we know of Eurasian prehistory, with the East Asian and West Eurasian populations being separated quite strictly since the earliest human expansions in Eurasia (confirmed by population genetics). We should instead "see" macro-families splitting from Southern Asia into Eastern and Western groups, maybe with the occasional crossover through the steppe belt, and not macro-families that span the continent and even into America totally ignoring Prehistoric reconstruction and genetic structure. <br /><br />Unlike Indoeuropean, Afroasiatic, Austronesian... these super-families lack of likely model to support them beyond the speculations of linguists. No cultural connection can be seen between China and Europe in all the archaeological record. Genetic distances may have been shortened a bit by the occasional steppe belt flows but it seems most unrealistic that before elite domination was possible, such cross-continental language migrations could happen without being part of major demographic migrations. <br /><br />Sorry about using "Georgian" for Kartvelian. I know it's not exactly the same... but almost. In this particular case I'm tempted to sympathize with a "Nostratic" (Indo-Uralic?) adscription.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8272135497021155338.post-29087981085440180132010-06-12T12:19:26.592+02:002010-06-12T12:19:26.592+02:00"Likewise, the Basque definite article -a com...<i>"Likewise, the Basque definite article <b>-a</b> comes from the old demonstrative <b>har</b> 'that'".<br />That sounds like a far fetched hypothesis to me, specially considering that Basque is a declinative language and that -a is interchangeable with -e depending on the dialect.</i><br /><br />This isn't so weird as it seems. For example, although Classical Latin had no articles, most Romance languages developed their own from the distal demonstrative <b>ille, illa</b>. Basque just did the same, but with the demostrative <i>postposed</i> to the noun. In fact, the Biscayan dialect (regarded to be the most conservative by Vascologists) is the only one which still retains the demonstrative <b>a</b> 'that' from the old <b>har</b>.<br /><br /><i>You claim such things as if they were absolute truths, just as certain as the sun rises every morning and water is made of hydrogen and oxygen.</i><br /><br />There's no such thing as "absolute truth" in Science. These examples are instances of <b>scientific principles</b>.<br /><br /><i>I think that is a serious fault of mainstream Linguistics (you are not the first linguist who I find speaking that way), which often tends to work on authority basis rather than scientific method, which is based on systematic doubt.</i><br /><br />This is a fault of the formal academic system, in which most scholars rely on stablished, previous work (and are actually rewarded for doing so). This is more acute in Humanities, where money is scarce and courses disappear from time to time.<br /><br /><i>Could be. I certainly tend to support some sort of very remote connection between Basque and NE Caucasian language families (which would include Hurro-Urartean and possibly Sumerian too) but so far I have not found any clear support for any connection with NW Caucasian nor Burushaski (nor Georgian, which is also sometimes mentioned).</i><br /><br />I think your linguistic picture is a bit rusty. Georgian is part of the <i>Kartvelian</i> family (formerly called "South Caucasian") and it's genetically unrelated to North Caucasian. Although still controversial, the relation between NWC (Abkhaz-Adyghe) and NEC (Nakh-Daghestanian) has been stablished up to a reasonable degree by Sergei Starostin (in collaboration with Sergei Nikolayev) and Viacheslav Chirikba.<br /><br />The grouping of Basque, (North)Caucasian and Burushaski was already proposed circa 1970 by the geograph Bogdan Zaborski, which coined the term "Asianitic" for this family. Later, John Bengtson employed the term "Vasco-Caucasian" or "Macro-Caucasian" for that. You can find some of the relevant articles at http://www.nostratic.ru/index.php?page=main&lang=en and http://starling.rinet.ru/texts_new.php?lan=en.<br /><br />I've also detected a Mesolithic substrate in NW Europe which belongs to the <i>Paleo-Eurasian</i> (aka <i>Eurasiatic</i>) phylum, that is, a more-or-less distant relative of Altaic and Indo-European itself. AFAIK, this is the oldest linguistic layer detectable by current means.Octavià Alexandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14569731729402710400noreply@blogger.com