The oddities of Basque

[bradrn]

Yes, indeed they are extremely different “warm”↔“apple” makes very little sense, whereas “dig”↔“pig” is perfectly plausible.

As I said before, there's no such verb 'to dig'.

I was referring only to the semantic development. I know too little about PIE to properly assess your claims about the existence of a verb ‘to dig’.

[Talskubilos]

I was referring only to the semantic development.

The semantic shift would be 'warm (season)' -> 'ripe (fruit)' -> 'apple/pear'.

[bradrn]

I was referring only to the semantic development.

The semantic shift would be 'warm (season)' -> 'ripe (fruit)' -> 'apple/pear'.

I do understand this. However I think that such a development would be extremely implausible, especially given that it goes from abstract to concrete. (Twice!)

[Talskubilos]

The semantic shift would be 'warm (season)' -> 'ripe (fruit)' -> 'apple/pear'.

I do understand this. However I think that such a development would be extremely implausible, especially given that it goes from abstract to concrete. (Twice!)

How would you explain then the relationship between Basque uda 'summer' and udare, udari 'pear'?

[bradrn]

How would you explain then the relationship between Basque uda 'summer' and udare, udari 'pear'?

‘Well, I for one have never believed all that business about dead animals turning into stone … It’s against all reason. What’s in it for them?’
‘So how do you explain fossils, then?’ said Ponder.
‘Ah, you see, I don’t,’ said the Lecturer in Recent Runes, with a triumphant smile. ‘It saves so much trouble in the long run.’

—Terry Pratchett, The Last Continent

Or, less facetiously: I know very little about Basque, and am not particularly expert in diachronics, so I prefer to avoid attempting to explain such things until I look into the subject more deeply. For the moment, the best answer I can give your question is that I can think of all sorts of explanations which don’t require an abstract→concrete semantic shift, but I don’t know if any of them are true, so for now I consider myself unable to answer your question.

[Pabappa]

basque also has madari as a variant of the word for pear, making it less likely that either word contains a morpheme /uda/. thats really all i have to say.

[Talskubilos]

basque also has madari as a variant of the word for pear, making it less likely that either word contains a morpheme /uda/. thats really all i have to say.

This m(a)- is a kind of prothesis found in variants of some words, namely hegal 'wing' -> magal, or udare, udari 'pear' -> madari. According to Trask, this "prefix" could have had originally an expressive function, later lost and thus became fossilized.

[Talskubilos]

The "multicoloured" etymon for "pig" is also plausible.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

The "multicoloured" etymon for "pig" is also plausible.

Is there a reason you feel the need to be so excessively rude?

[Talskubilos]

Is there a reason you feel the need to be so excessively rude?

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Pabappa]

basque also has madari as a variant of the word for pear, making it less likely that either word contains a morpheme /uda/. thats really all i have to say.

This m(a)- is a kind of prothesis found in variants of some words, namely hegal 'wing' -> magal, or udare, udari 'pear' -> madari. According to Trask, this "prefix" could have had originally an expressive function, later lost and thus became fossilized.

except that neither *au nor *ahe regularly appears in modern Basque as a simple /a/, whether the compound is historical or modern and transparent. Trask himself confirms this, stating the modern reflxes of those sequences would either be /au/ and /ahe/ (no change at all) if transparent compounds, or at best /o/ and /e/ if ancient. There are irregular developments in a few dialects, but it would be quite the coincidence if both of the words you picked were irregulars, I think.

[Ketsuban]

As I said before, there's no such verb 'to dig'. ;)

That's quite a claim. The root *perḱ- is reconstructed on the basis of reflexes in Baltic (Lithuanian prapar̃šas "ditch"), Celtic (Welsh rhych "furrow, groove", Latin loanword riga "scratch, cleft"), Germanic (English furrow, Dutch voor "furrow", German Furche "furrow", Italian loanword forra "ravine, gorge") and Indic (Sanskrit पर्शान párśāna "chasm") even without including *pórḱos which is attested in Slavic (too many languages to even list), Celtic (Irish arc "piglet"), Germanic (English farrow), Iranian (Avestan pər^əsa "piglet"), Italic (Latin porcus "piglet; pig") and a loan in the Uralic family (e.g. Finnish porsas "piglet; pork"). I'll grant you that *pórḱos could just as easily be from *perḱ- "mottled, speckled, spotted" (which also has animal derivatives in Greek πρόξ "roe deer", πέρκος "hawk"; Latin perca "perch"; German Forelle "trout") but the idea that "dig" straight up does not exist is a stretch.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Is there a reason you feel the need to be so excessively rude?

I'm sorry you feel that way.

So you just like being rude to people who disagree with you or point out flaws in your reasoning?

[Talskubilos]

So you just like being rude to people who disagree with you or point out flaws in your reasoning?

No, just because I find that etymological proposal pretty ridiculous.

[bradrn]

So you just like being rude to people who disagree with you or point out flaws in your reasoning?

No, just because I find that etymological proposal pretty ridiculous.

Well then… why not just say so‽ No need to needlessly antagonise people with contentless replies when you could have just said this in the first place. Or even better, say why you think it’s ridiculous as well! (After all, we haven’t exactly been reticent with our own criticisms.)

(And also, perhaps try easing off on the emojis. For some reason they do come across as a bit annoying, at least for me.)

[Talskubilos]

except that neither *au nor *ahe regularly appears in modern Basque as a simple /a/, whether the compound is historical or modern and transparent. Trask himself confirms this, stating the modern reflxes of those sequences would either be /au/ and /ahe/ (no change at all) if transparent compounds, or at best /o/ and /e/ if ancient. There are irregular developments in a few dialects, but it would be quite the coincidence if both of the words you picked were irregulars, I think.

Please noticed I used the term "prefix" between quotation marks because I don't think these words are real compounds, but rather ma- replaces the first syllable.

On the other hand, an initial m- is often found in expressive reduplicatives, as in e.g. olomolo 'wild oat', from olo 'oat'; (h)ondar-mondar 'last residues', from (h)ondar 'sediments, dregs'; zil(h)o-mil(h)o 'holes and scrapes', from zil(h)o 'hole'.

[Talskubilos]

As I said before, there's no such verb 'to dig'.

That's quite a claim. The root *perḱ- is reconstructed on the basis of reflexes in Baltic (Lithuanian prapar̃šas "ditch"), Celtic (Welsh rhych "furrow, groove", Latin loanword riga "scratch, cleft"), Germanic (English furrow, Dutch voor "furrow", German Furche "furrow", Italian loanword forra "ravine, gorge") and Indic (Sanskrit पर्शान párśāna "chasm") [...] but the idea that "dig" straight up does not exist is a stretch.

But still isn't attested as a verb, only as derivated nouns.

[Talskubilos]

Well then… why not just say so‽ No need to needlessly antagonise people with contentless replies when you could have just said this in the first place. Or even better, say why you think it’s ridiculous as well! (After all, we haven’t exactly been reticent with our own criticisms.)

Why are IE scholars so desperate to make up "internal etymologies" for words which can be readily explained as loanwords/Wanderwörter?

[bradrn]

Well then… why not just say so‽ No need to needlessly antagonise people with contentless replies when you could have just said this in the first place. Or even better, say why you think it’s ridiculous as well! (After all, we haven’t exactly been reticent with our own criticisms.)

Why are IE scholars so desperate to make up "internal etymologies" for words which can be readily explained as loanwords/Wanderwörter?

Mostly because:

1. Wanderwörter aren’t terribly common, especially very long-range ones; and
2. Loanwords of all sorts are tricky to prove for sure, and easy to get wrong; and
3. The internal etymologies tend to be remarkably consistent and plausible, so by Ockham’s Razor are probably true.

And yes, you can easily argue with the first two points, but the third is basically unassailable. As with modern IE languages, PIE had a very productive derivational morphology, and its traces are all over its modern-day descendants.

EDIT: And 4. Given the comparative lack of regular sound correspondences in loans, it’s easy to find a loanword ‘explanation’ which turns out to be merely a chance resemblance. Internal etymologies don’t have that problem.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

So you just like being rude to people who disagree with you or point out flaws in your reasoning?

No, just because I find that etymological proposal pretty ridiculous.

And you couldn't explain that? Also, naming animals for a trait they have is not particularly uncommon — both Sinitic and Japonic appear to have onomatopoeic words for "cat", for example; we also have animal names like rusty spotted cat, ant-eater, and so on in English — so an explanation of why you find it ridiculous would also be in order, as is an apology.