Pre-Proto-Basque: is there a methodology to establishing its vocabulary?

Question

For example, say I have a list Basque/Euskera words, is there a way I can reconstruct these modern Basque words into a Pre-Proto-Basque version?

beo (hot)
lur (earth)
izotz (ice)
izuga (fear)
bai (yes)
ze (no)
ao (mouth)
draga (spear)
il (death)
dan (drink)
jarai (follow)
laster (fast)

I have read the wikipedia page that somewhat elucidates this potential.

I have not went to the library and searched for "Reconstructing the Pre-Proto-Basque Root" by Joseba A. Lakarra yet so I wondered if anyone has andor can explain his methodology.

Pre-Proto-Basque presumes there is already a (necessarily internally) reconstructed "Proto-Basque", and Pre-Proto-Basque would be the language before that. Proto-Basque is what you would get from successful reconstruction of Basque. If you start with modern roots, you get Proto, not Pre-Proto. If you're having this much difficulty with the concept, maybe you ought to read Larry Trask's classic Historical Linguistics, which devotes a lot of attention to Basque. — jlawler, Apr 22 '12 at 20:42
@jlawler Alas, this Basque scholar Joseba A. Lakarra mentioned above indeed uses this term "pre-Proto-Basque" in his writings. — Mark Beadles, Apr 23 '12 at 00:44
I personally have never heard of pre-proto-languages before but it turns out that, indeed, this term is sometimes used in historical linguistics. For example, Lyle Campbell wrote the following in his textbook: "Often, reconstruction by the comparative method reveals alternations which the proto-language underwent, and it is perfectly legitimate to apply internal reconstruction to these proto-alternations in order to reach even further back in time, to a pre-proto-language" (Campbell 2004: 240). — Alex B., Apr 23 '12 at 02:32
And here's what Trask says in his Dictionary of Historical and Conmparative Linguistics (Trask 2000): "pre-, an element prefixed to the name of a single language to denote a significantly earlier, and unrecorded, stage of that language." In the same entry, he gives the following example, Pre-Proto-Indo-European, "an ancestral form of PIE which is significantly earlier than, and different from, the version of PIE which is directly ancestral to the IE languages" (Trask 2000: 261). In other words, a pre-language is a result of internal reconstruction, whereas a proto-l. - of external. — Alex B., Apr 23 '12 at 02:51
I suspect that pre-proto-X is another way of saying "early proto-X." — Alex B., Apr 23 '12 at 03:12
@jlawler, I have just purchased Historical Linguistics as a reference. — Brandon Minton, Apr 23 '12 at 21:40
@Alex B., I agree with you that the prefix 'pre-' is equivalent to "early proto-language". Trask himself illustrates that rather well. — Brandon Minton, Apr 23 '12 at 21:40
@BrandonMinton You're welcome! :) Everybody: Please keep the discussion to a minimum. If you need to discuss extensively (and I'd understand that need), consider using the [chat]. :) — Alenanno, Apr 23 '12 at 22:02
‘pre-proto-X’ is a label for a protolanguage that has been internally reconstructed from another protolanguage. Thus, Proto-Athabaskan is a protolanguage reconstructed from across the Athabaskan language family. Pre-Proto-Athabaskan is the internal reconstruction of Proto-Athabaskan, accounting for some oddities in the protolanguage by describing them via regular sound changes. It’s an application of internal reconstruction to a protolanguage. Protolanguages must come from a family, prelanguages come from internal reconstruction of a single language. — James C., May 04 '12 at 20:24

score 2 · Accepted Answer · answered Aug 05 '12 at 07:50

You can read the article in question online :) It's in the book Lakarra collaborated on with Trask and Hualde, "Towards a History of the Basque Language.", and it's on googlebooks - you can view the entire article.

But the short answer is that the methods of approaching the prehistory of an isolate are generally by (1) examining prehistoric loan words from other languages; (2) examining prehistoric loan words into other languages; (3) internal reconstruction from morphological and lexical patterns. With (1) you can see what sound changes have taken place (beyond simple loan adaptation) since the borrowing; (2) gives you an indication of the phonological form of a native word at a prehistoric point, and thus an idea of what scs have occurred since; (3) allows you to use the comparative method--just with rather limited data.

What does "scs" mean where you have written "and thus an idea of what scs have occurred since"? — hippietrail, Aug 05 '12 at 12:09

Anixx · Answer 2 · 2012-05-01T04:11:35.510

-2

To reconstruct a proto-language you need to compare several languages, descended on the proto-language. It is generally impossible to reconstruct a proto-language using only one of its descendants.

That said, since Basque belongs to Dene-Caucasian language macrofamily, it is possible to reconstruct some proto-forms.

The ancient forms are as follows (V=unknown vowel).

Basque   |  Proto-Sino-Caucasian
--------------------------------
lur      |  lhĭ́mŁwɨ̆
edan     |  dVnV (this is related to Proto-Indo-European *dhenw "to flow" 
         |  which resulted in Latin "fontis" and English "fountain"
izu      |  ħVmć̣V
aho      |  ɦŏ́mxGVwV
draga    |  twVŋV (not sure if it related)

edited May 01 '12 at 04:11

answered May 01 '12 at 03:41

Anixx

6,643
1
26
38

2

Although it's worthy of note that Bengtson and Starostin believe in a Dené-Caucasian, the forms proposed for the individual words have a shaky phonological foundation, bound to change drastically for each word if we are ever able to prove more concretely that these languages are related. (That Yeniseian and Na-Dené were by Vajda essentially shown to be nuclear to each other among any grouping of modern languages, whereas Starostin placed Na-Dené in opposition to all of Sino-Caucasian, should be an indication.) I believe Lakarra's idea of "Pre-Proto-Basque" is much more recent. – Daniel Briggs May 01 '12 at 05:00
2

"To reconstruct a proto-language you need to compare several languages, descended on the proto-language. It is generally impossible to reconstruct a proto-language using only one of its descendants." I am afraid you didn't understand the question, Anixx. The OP is interested in internal reconstruction (hence pre-). – Alex B. May 01 '12 at 21:27
5

‘Dene-Caucasian’ is rejected by every historical linguist that I’ve ever met aside from Bengston and Starostin themselves. Several review articles have demonstrated that their methodologies are flawed and that they work from unreliable, unverified, and often incorrect data. I don’t think it’s advisable to take their hypotheses very seriously, and they may in fact be unfalsifiable and hence unscientific. – James C. May 04 '12 at 20:29
2

@Anixx, the current uncertainties of the said work of Bengtson and Starostin make me very cautious about running with their work regarding Basque. As Alex B.said, I am interested in an internal reconstruction. That said, the text for your Proto-Sino-Caucasian text looks very strange in my web browser. "ħVmć̣V" -- I am not sure how to read this. – Brandon Minton May 16 '12 at 10:16

Pre-Proto-Basque: is there a methodology to establishing its vocabulary?

2 Answers2