Talk:Basque language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Basque language article.
Article policies

The Wikipedia entry on Iberian Languages says that -iltir is a common Iberian name element. Could this possibly be related to Kartlii, and the Georgian hypothesis?? L <-> R, so something like Kartlii -> Ka-ltrii ~ Ka-iltir ????!?!??!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Historical Connections

The section on higher-level connections is not precise, and the way it is written, it may sound biased as well. First, I'd like to comment on the sentences used, then I'd like to suggest some corrections:

Many scholars have tried to link Basque to Etruscan, African languages, Caucasian languages and so on.

We should either list no proposed languages or all of them.

A connection with the Iberian language gave some hope, but it is unclear whether similarities are due to genetic relations or mere vicinity.

Any claim should be backed up with references. Moreover, the language isn't neutral ("gave some hope", "mere vicinity").

The Caucasian hypothesis is widespread in Georgia as a link between Basques and Georgians, but there is little evidence to support it. (See Caucasian Iberia.) One of the few practical consequences is that the former mayor of Bilbao José María Gorordo made the city and the Georgian capital Tbilisi twin cities, and Euskal Telebista (Basque Television) co-produced a version of Don Quixote with Georgian Television.

This is not precise either. The hypothesis should be called "Kartvelian" (or "Georgian", at least), since "Caucasian languages" is an areal bundle of three distinct genealogical groups considered unrelated (actually, the hypothesis linking the Northeast Caucasian with Northwest Caucasian, or either of the two with Kartvelian/South Caucasian is just as controversial as linking Basque to Georgian or any other language family in many linguists' opinions).

So, although this is an interesting piece of information, it is by no means more valuable than others that are missing.

Some adherents of the theory that Basque and the Caucasian languages are akin go so far as to propose a superfamily, the Dene-Caucasian languages. This superfamily would also include the North American family of Na-Dené languages.

Again, this is not precise. Caucasian languages should be rewritten as North Caucasian (or Northeast and Northwest Caucasian at least) to avoid ambiguity and confusion with the above-mentioned Kartvelian/Georgian hypothesis.

In addition, This superfamily would also include the North American family of Na-Dené languages. is a sentence that immediately manipulates the reader into an impression that the Dene-Caucasian hypothesis is obscure itself. I think we all agree that judging hypotheses should be up to the readers. At least, an article on Basque is not a place to inform of a details about a different matter.

So, why is only Na-Dene mentioned? To be balanced, we should either list all the proposed branches (like Northeast Caucasian, Northwest Caucasian, Burushaski, Yeniseian, Sino-Tibetan and Na-Dene) or none at all, leaving it wholly up to the reader.

It has also been suggested that there is a genetic relationship between the Basque people and the Ainu, the aboriginal inhabitants of Japan. This theory also argues for a linguistic relationship with the Eskimo-Aleut family.

If the first paragraph ends in "and so on", why is the one above continuing??? Consistency is what we should also focus on. Again, any references???

In addition to controversial linguistic theories, Basque has also often been involved in pseudoscientific language comparisons by non-experts.

This is a good piece of information, but it should be noted that not only Vasconic studies suffer from pseudoscientific comparisons. Perhaps, some examples could be here, too.

NOW, MY SUGGESTION (since I'm not a native speaker, I hope someone will correct my English :-)):

The impossibility to link Basque with its Indoeuropean neighbours in Europe made many scholars to search its possible relatives elsewhere. Besides many pseudoscientific comparisons, the appearance of long-range linguistics gave rise to several attempts at connecting Basque with geographically very distant language families. While the link with the ancestor of Basque, the ancient Acquitanian language, was proven beyond reasonable doubt by Michelena and Trask, other hypotheses are considered controversial and the suggested evidence is believed to be as yet undecisive.

[edit] Iberian

Iberian, another ancient language once spoken in the peninsula, shows several similarities with Acquitanian and Basque. However, there is not enough evidence to distinguish areal contacts from genetic relationship.

[edit] Georgian

The Georgian hypothesis, linking Basque to South Caucasian or Kartvelian languages, is widespread in Georgia. One of the few practical consequences is that the former mayor of Bilbao José María Gorordo made the city and the Georgian capital Tbilisi twin cities, and Euskal Telebista (Basque Television) co-produced a version of Don Quixote with Georgian Television. Despite its popularity, there is little evidence to support it.

[edit] Nostratic

Besides Kartvelian, Basque has been unsuccessfuly compared with many other Nostratic language families, among them Altaic, Uralic, Indoeuropean, Dravidian and even Eskimo-Aleut. None of these attempts have succeeded in proving such link.

[edit] Dené-Caucasian

Several scholars (Trombetti, Bouda, Bengtson, Blažek) have independently proposed a connection with the other two Caucasian families, Northwest and especially Northeast Caucasian. John D. Bengtson and Václav Blažek have proposed the so-called Macro-Caucasian hypothesis, suggesting a closer link with Burushaski, Northeast Caucasian and Northwest Caucasian, and, in accord with earlier findings of Sapir, Shaffer and S. A. Starostin, consider them all a part of the Dene-Caucasian macrofamily. Although this is one of the most elaborate theories, based on both typological (such as ergativity) and historical-comparative (phonological correspondences, lexical parallels, morphological similarities) evidence, it has not gained wider acceptance among the traditionalist, who consider the evidence as yet undecisive. The question of the affinity of Basque thus remains open.

If this is too much information for a mention, I could offer another version:

Some scholars have independently proposed a connection with the North Caucasian languages and Burushaski, as well a distant relationship with other Dene-Caucasian languages. The hypothesis, though one onf the most elaborate, has not gained wider acceptance among the traditionalists, who consider the evidence as yet undecisive. The question of the affinity of Basque thus remains open.

[edit] Ainu

It has also been suggested that there is a genetic relationship between the Basque people and the Ainu, the aboriginal inhabitants of Japan, but no decisive evidence has been given so far.

[edit] Ergative

The notes about the ergative case need more checking and probably elaboration. The entry under ergative case needs this as well, as there are different types of ergative systems.

I've changed 'unusual grammatical forms' to 'grammatical forms unusual in Europe', because the ergative is quite common worldwide, and there's nothing particularly unusual about Basque's application of it. Gritchka

It is my understanding that Basque has no accusative. The Object is the nominative. That's the point of having an ergative. -- Error

Basque uses an ergative ⁄ absolutive system instead of a nominative ⁄ accusative one. Elconde

Some other words are thought to go back to the Stone Age because they include the root haitz- (rock).

Does anyone know the details behind the above statement? I'm guessing that haitz- has been found in languages from cultures which have been physically isolated since the stone age (rather than anything particular about the word "rock") but the current rendition doesn't really make that clear. - IMSoP 00:10, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know it's purely that in those words for tools made of stone in the stone age, there is a element meaning "rock". -- Error 02:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hm, I'm still confused. Are you saying
  • these are words for things that, since the Stone Age ended, have been made of things other than stone;
    • but which, during the Stone Age, would have been made from stone
  • and therefore the fact that these things are labelled with words related to "rock" implies that they have been called those same things ever since they were made of stone,
    • and therefore ever since the Stone Age?
If so, we need to work out how to explain that in many fewer words to clarify the article. - IMSoP 21:55, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yeah. It's not very plausible but there are also those that said that Basque was the language of Eden before Babel.

Hi there, what it means is simply that many words for tools such as axe (haizkora), or knife (haizto), have the same root: haitz, rock. They are tools that were made of stone in the stone age, and soon afterwards of iron. It could be a coincidence, but it'd be a very odd one, wouldn't it?

I'd like to know if the Basque Wikipedia is the first and only encyclopedia in the Basque language. Guaka 22:59, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently it isn't. [1] Guaka 23:04, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It definetly isn't. I don't know about online encyclopedia, but definetly not the first encyclopedia.

[edit] Euskara vs Euskera

Thinking about this lovely language I'm so fond of, would anyone who knows a bit more about it add why whe mention that the Basque name for the language is Euskara, but do not happen to mention the everpresent Euskera as well? Muhamedmesic 19:33, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, see that it's been added. Dialectal names, you say. What about the Euskaltzaindia? Anyway, lagun, eskerrik asko! Muhamedmesic 22:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Euskera is often used in Spanish, Euskara and Euskera are both used in Basque, there is no point in deleting Euskera, this happened too in the French Wikipedia, these spelling wars are stupid and intolerant, the good neutral attitude would be to put them both explaining in which dialect they are used. Kamitxu

[edit] Writing system question

I see from the article that Euskara is written with the Latin alphabet. When I was in the Basque country, there were a lot of signs written in the Greek alphabet. I assumed they were Basque; what gives? Thanks --Chinasaur 05:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In Greek? Are you sure it wasn't Bashkiria? I can't imagine a place in BC with Greek signs! There is a font family used in some Basque texts (and in French bilingual signs), characterized by thick serifs, but it doesn't seem Greek to me. -- Error 01:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you're asking me if I'm sure I was in France and not Russia, then yeah I'm pretty sure :). You could be on to something with the typefaces; it was a long time ago but I particularly remember thinking I was seeing some Φs. Maybe the "t" in some of the faces you linked to could be what I was seeing. I really thought there was some other Greek-looking stuff, but it was too long ago to remember clearly. This was around Saint Jean de Luz. Thanks for looking into it. --Chinasaur 04:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rock and axe

Some other words have been proposed to go back to the Stone Age because they include the root haitz- ("rock") for objects which have since been made from other materials. For example, haiztoa ("knife"), haizkora ("axe"; others link this to Latin asceola, "little axe").

It's a bit unclear the reason of this comment:

1: it is pretty clear that it was borrowed from Latin, just as the English word "axe"

I am not sure the english word is derived from Latin. It seems plausible it is a common IE cognate...

2: even if it was of Basque origin, what would it prove? that Basques ancestors used rock tools ? All our ancestors used them. That is a thousands of years old? In any natural language most words are that old.

No, languages change faster than that. A language that still maintains relation to the stone age would be indeed remarkable. Advocates of Basque like to quote it. -- Error 04:00, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's not very clear what you mean by "maintains relation to the stone age". Basque is like most languages, it has a very long history but has undergone many changes throughout that history. It surely does preserve some words that are thousands of years old, but then, so does English and so do most languages. There is no particular limit to how far back a language can be reconstructed -- it depends on each individual case. But there are cases where it's pretty well agreed among historical linguists that the proto-language (hypothetical ancestor of a current family of languages) goes back at least 10,000 years or so. -- Unamuno 23:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3: it's not even a unique derivation: for example "Seax" (short sword of the Saxons; hence their name) was probably derived from the Latin word "Saxum" (rock) Bogdan | Talk 10:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Officiality

Spanish Constitution: Espainiako beste hizkuntzak ere ofizialak izango dira haiei dagozkien Erkidego Autonomoetan berauen Estatutoei dagozkien eran.

Basque is not coofficial in the rest of Spain. -- Error 20:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of "Basque"/"Vasco"?

What is the origin of the term that has been adopted by most European languages? A-giau 09:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1817, from Sp. vasco (adj.), from vascon (n.), from L. Vascones, said to originally mean "foresters." Vasconia was the Roman name for the up-country of the western Pyrenees. Earlier Basquish (1612). (www.etymonline.com)
Latin Vascones is certainly the source for the word, but I know there is fairly significant uncertainly as to the origin of the Latin word (as there is for very many Greek and Latin names for various tribes). I know Trask's book has a list of the hypotheses. -- Unamuno 14:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some people say it comes from basoko (in basque, "from the forest"), but the word baso (forest) probably comes from the latin boscus, so what about bosconia = "land of forests" (just a thought).

[edit] Dialect names

I've just made a couple minor modifications to the Dialects section -- it could be considerably expanded and perhaps I'll do that soon. But for now I just wanted to note that I've chosen what seem to be to be reasonably common and recognizable forms for the dialect names. However, there are unfortunately a large number of variants -- there are slightly different Spanish, French, and Basque variants for most of the dialect names (e.g. Zuberoan vs. Souletin, Labortano vs. Labourdin vs. Lapurdian). In the case of the province of Bizkaia there is even an established English variant (Biscay), although rarely used. At any rate, I figured it was worth getting opinions on how to name the dialects, which other variant name to mention in parenthesis, etc. -- Unamuno 14:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Standard Basque is mostly based on 17th century classical Navarese-Labourdin. Vocabulary is more Gipuzkoan though.

 -- Basque guy surfing, 26 March 2005

[edit] The term 'Basque Country'

I think that the term is misused in the article and it's confusing. It's said that Basque official in full 'Basque Country' and some parts of Navarre. I consider this inaccurate. What it's called here 'Basque Country' is the 'Basque Autonomous Community' (Comunidad Autonoma del Pais Vasco, Euskal Autonomia Erkidegoa), a community inside the Spanish Country, but has nothing to do which what is historically considered 'Basque Country' or Euskal Herria.

[edit] Vowels

The vowel system is the same as Spanish for most speakers, namely /a, e, i, o, u/. It is thought that Spanish took this system from Basque.

Greek has the five vowels /i e a o u/ as well. Did Basque influence it, too? The 5-vowel system is the most common in languages worldwide. Is there any evidence giving reason to suspect that Basque gave Spanish its vowels, or is this just a myth? --Vlad

But Greek had length differences, didn't it?
(Ancient Greek yes, modern Greek no. --John Cowan 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC))
Isn't Castilian Spanish (not the s-aspirating variants) the only Romance language with 5 vowels? Maybe Gascon language or Spanish-influenced Galician language, or some Italian dialects have also just five.

A reference would be good, though.

Answer: Standard Galician has seven vowels (it distinguishes between "closed" e and "open" e, and between "closed" o and "open" o. Nevertheless, some Galician-speakers use more vowels in their speech (in the Ancares mountains, the nasal vowels haven't dissappeared yet), and many Galician-speakers (especially new-speakers, snobs, TV and radio hosts) don't make any difference between "closed" vowels and "open" vowels. Sardinian is a romanica language with merely 5 vowels. Hence, Dante wrote that Sardinians speak like monkeys imitating humans. --Yerrux

The five-vowel system is fairly uncommon for a Romance language. Neighbouring languages such as Galician and Catalan have more. FilipeS 19:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Castilian has five vowels because the open e and o of the earlier pan-Western-Romance 7-vowel system "broke" to ie and ue respectively, leaving the open vowels to move up to e and o. There is nothing particularly Basque in this. --John Cowan 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but why did that happen with Castilian, and not with the other languages around it? I'm not saying anything is proven, but a Basque influence is certainly a plausible explanation a priori. FilipeS 21:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me to much of a coincidence, really. Most other romances have more than five vowels (phonemes) while (AFAIK, it seems that with the exception of Sardinian) only Basque and the romances that have been influenced by Basque (i.e. Gascon, Castilian, Aragonese and even the Western Catalan dialect) have precisely 5 vowels, at least in Europe. --Sugaar 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The ancient castilian had 7 vowels (see poetry and other literature of XII-XIV). Castilian have 5 vowels by contact with arab lenguage, not basque. There was not basque culture in X-XIV, and basque population in early II millenium was very small and very, very backward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.20.106 (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Andalusian Spanish (further from Basque) has more vowels, but Souletin Basque has ü. --Error 01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm... Iberian is thought to have had only five vowels, too. Perhaps all we can say is that, whatever the languages spoken by the inhabitants of Hispania when the Romans exported their language, they influenced the vowel system of modern Spanish. What remains to be proven is the direction of influence: Basque -> Spanish, Spanish -> Basque, ? -> Basque and Spanish. Ignacio González 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euskaltzaindia

Could someone take a look at the new article Euskaltzaindia and see if it needs to be fixed up, altered, or just redirected here. THanks. -- John Fader 20:04, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] clean up

i did a little cleaning up of this today but it still needs more work and expansion, i'm not sure would i could add to it, so someone please try to expand the article.

[edit] Grammar Question

I have trouble understanding this sentence. "in this instance a null case 0 equates to the " nork ", which in most European languages would be the subject. " What does a "null case 0" mean? It seems that it has something to do with "nothing", but I don't understand exactly what that should be, maybe someone with a knowledge of Basque grammar could rewrite this, so it would be clearer and easier to understand...

[edit] Digraphs

Alphabets derived from the Latin says that Basque has digraphs. This article says it doesn't. — PhilHibbs | talk 09:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it means that they are treated as two letters when sorting. --Error 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Digraph (orthography) indicates that 'tx' is a digraph in Basque; this is contradictory to the information on this page. --Ghewgill 19:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Basque have the following digraphs: dd, rr, ts, tt, tx and tz. They are treated as separate letters in the dictionaries though. Additionaly i before n or l palatalizes their sound (in=iñ/inh/ign, il=ill/ilh/igl). --Sugaar 03:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin cases

I have reverted the Latin cases to accusative. As far as I know, the form of Latin words when they become Spanish (and probably other Romance languages) come from the erosion of the accusative, not from nominative. I guess that it is the same for Basque. Hence flos (N), florem (Ac) becomes flor, fleur, fiore, lore, flower. --Error 00:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea to me. I speak Italian and used to teach Latin. I have long assumed [perhaps wrongly]that Italian used the ablative case. Most examples that come to mind would work by eroding the accusative too: of course 2nd & 4th declension u's not surprisingly would show up as o's in Italian [e.g. spiritu[m]=spirito]. But if there is a neuter 3rd declension noun whose accusative is the same as the nominative, then it's interesting indeed. What comes to mind is nomen with Italian nome; but then what about genus which in Italian is genere?
-- User:Frmikesgs
Maybe Vulgar Latin makes it clear.--Error 01:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language politics

You may want to contribute to Language politics in Francoist Spain. --Error 01:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classification

In this site it is classified as Dene-Caucasian/Basque: [2]

In this site it is classified as Sino-Caucasian/Mediterranean/Basque: [3]

Different classifications, but both agree to put it into one superfamily with Sinitic, Na-Dene, Yenissean and Caucasian languages.

Basque language is not a language-isolate.--Nixer 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Many theories have been advanced, but none has yet been accepted by the scholarly community. The consensus view has long been that it is an isolate. - SimonP 04:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Have you any links and what do you call "community"? I give you two ones from academic sites.--Nixer 05:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The two links above are from the same institution, the Santa Fe Institute, which is hardly a mainstream or highly-respected institution. Although I'm not a great fan of Ethnologue, it shows Basque unrelated to other language groups. Also, rather than list all the possible academic sites that state that linguists generally consider Basque an isolate, why not pick some from the list supplied by Google: Language Centre, Cambridge University and Linguistics Department, Lund University for example. You could reference such a fringe theory further down the article as such, but it is highly non-neutral point of view to include such a theory as widely accepted truth for the entire article. --Gareth Hughes 13:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The Sante Fe Institute is well-respected...for its speculative research in complex adaptive systems. This is not the Institute's area of expertise. Basque is considered a language isolate by the majority of linguists. The entry should reflect that consensus view, and the minority opinions should be noted in passing.
I think we need to reach a conclusion on the classification, because Basque language is often mentioned as an example of a language isolate. Currently this page lists it as belonging to the Dene-Caucasian language family. Ought this to be changed? —Quirk 13:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I gave you link not to Santa Fe institute: [[4]. Please give ANY link that disproves this theory.--Nixer 07:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Nixer 07:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes and yes! The Dene-Caucasian superfamily is a myth. M - Y - T - H !!!!!! The similarities in structure are the consequences of mere coincidence. The Basque, Caucasian and Dene peoples have been seperated from each other for myriads of years. All the same, why don't we unite the Turkic languages and Quechua in one superphylum? Have you ever noticed how similar their grammars are? Caesarion 19:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hm, this might be a little too overheated a reaction, but anyway, now you know where I come from :-)... Caesarion 20:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry I have confused the second link. It should be [5]. Look at this classification. Relative languages to Basque are for example Etruscan, Rhaetic, Ligurian, Pictian, though they all extinct. Also I did not mean Dene-Caucasian is a family, but a superfamily like Euroasiatic.--Nixer 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I gave you tvo links to sited that state the origisn oif the language. Give me at least one link that disproves this theory.--Nixer 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Any link? Here's a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_isolate ("Known in its own language as Euskera; no known living relatives"); http://www.bartleby.com/61/14/L0041475.html ("A language that has no known linguistic affiliation with any other language, such as Basque or Tarascan"); http://simr02.si.ehu.es/DOCS/book.SS-G/v2/Euskara.html ("One of the most likely hypotheses argues that the Basque language developed "in situ", in the land of the primitive Basques"); http://www.icyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/b/ba/basque_language.html ("their origins are still unknown as are the origins of their language itself. Many people have tried to link Basque to Etruscan, African languages, Caucasian languages and so on, but most scholars see Basque as a language isolate"); http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109819 ("language isolate, the only remnant of the languages spoken in southwestern Europe before the region was Romanized"); http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/larryt/basque.faqs.html ("the most strenuous efforts at finding other relatives for Basque have been complete failures: obviously the relatives that Basque once had have died out without trace. People have tried to connect Basque with Berber, Egyptian, and other African languages, with Iberian, Pictish, Etruscan, Minoan, Sumerian, the Finno-Ugric languages, the Caucasian languages, the Semitic languages, with Burushaski (another language with no known relatives, spoken in the Himalayas) -- in fact, with almost all the languages of Africa and Asia, living and dead, and even with languages of the Pacific and of North America. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Basque absolutely cannot be shown to be related to any other language at all. Some people will try to tell you differently, but, not to mince words, they don't know what they're talking about"); http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Basque_language ("Although it is geographically surrounded by Indo-European languages, it is believed to be a language isolate"--is this just from Wikipedia?); http://www.answers.com/main/ntq-tname-basque%252Dlanguage-fts_start- ("Basque is definitely not an Indo-European tongue. Some scholars believe it is descended from Aquitanian, which was spoken on the Iberian peninsula and in S Gaul in ancient times. Other linguists think Basque is akin to the Caucasian languages and suggest that its speakers came from Asia Minor to Spain and Gaul c.2000 B.C. However, no relationship between Basque and any other language has been established with certainty"); http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Basque_language ("most scholars see Basque as a language isolate"); http://www.ling.lu.se/persons/Arthur/euskera.html ("Basque is the only non-Indo-European language in Western Europe, and the only linguistic isolate in Europe as a whole. The Basque language has no known relatives"); http://web.uconn.edu/linguistics/classroom/SP05103AC/Class18.pdf#search='basque%20language%20isolate' ("Basque is a language isolate"); http://www.kutjara.com/wiki/index.php?title=Basque ("Basque is an agglutinating language isolate"); http://pedia.nodeworks.com/L/LA/LAN/Language_isolate ("Others, like Basque, have been isolates for as long as their existence has been documented."); http://www.myfonts.com/Language?id=92 ("Language Family: Basque (Isolate)"); http://www.euskara.us/euskara%20pages/dialects_of_basque.htm ("no relationship between Basque and any other language has been established with certainty"); http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jcamacho/363/amorrortu.pdf#search='basque%20language%20isolate' ("The Basque language, a pre-Indo-European isolate"); http://ca.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefEdList.aspx?refid=210110222 ("Isolate Languages Basque Language"). Is this enough? A few of these may be redundant, but I think the presence of references from encyclopedias and academic institutions makes the point. Basque is widely held to be a language isolate with no known connections to other languages. (Edit: Forgot to sign this the first time.) JJL 17:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What we are speaking about? Yes, Britannica is right. Relatives of Basque are dead. And so what? Languages revative to Basque were spoken in Europe before the Aryan invasion. NOW it is one language in its family - and is isolate in THIS sence. For example, Pictic had extinct in VII-X centuries. I give you links to linguistic sites with complete classification of world's languages, not to pop-garbage.--Nixer 09:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I was responding to this edit: "01:13, 8 January 2006 Nixer (rv, please provide ANY link to your "mainstream view")". These are some links that back up the view that the consensus of linguists is that Basque is a language isolate, with no known relations to other languages. Is that not what you were asking for? As to pop garbage, these include links from courses at UConn and Rutgers, as well as encyclopedias. JJL 17:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The "pop garbage" includes the work of the late Larry Trask, who was both a respected historical linguist and one of the world's leading authorities on Basque. As for "linguistic sites", the Santa Fe Institute is not one, and in any case the presence of two sites claiming living relatives for Basque doesn't change the fact that the great majority of linguists don't agree. 67.101.96.244 17:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Majority has nothing to do with truth. What was the majority's opinion on the Earth and the Sun and their position in the Solar system 500 years ago? Was it really the correct one? What counts is the evidence. Larry Trask, a respected Vasconist, can't have avoided certain mistakes. The argument that the geographical distance between Na-Dene and Basque is too large is very weak. Just look at the other language families and macro-families. The Basque izolationism has much more to do with politics than linguistics.
I also wonder why there's a mention of Georgian-Basque connections. Georgian is a Kartvelian language and belongs to the Nostratic macro-family. "Caucasian hypothesis" is about Vasco-North Caucasian comparisons.
Now, the evidence: I won't give you all the comparisons here (visit the Dene-Caucasian article where it's all going to be presented soon), but (1) regular (recurrent) sound correspondences have been found (including some non-trivial ones), (2) morphological correspondences have been found, (3) hundreds of cognates (based on (1)) have been found, including those that belong to the stablest ones, as far as semantics is concerned, which IS a strong argument against look-alikes and chance resemblances
Larry Trask's search for internal explanations and Latin/Germanic/Celtic etc. loans was by all means legitimate, but if Irish and Hindi are related (what's the geographical distance between them?), why not search for Basque's relatives in the same distance? Typologically (although typology may have little to do with genealogy), some clues pointed to the Caucasus, so the choice wasn't arbitrary. Larry Trask often used what we know as "folk etymology", just because he didn't compare the forms to their possible cognates outside Basque. Nobody says the D-C hypothesis is perfect. It's far too young and innocent. But there's no point in rejecting it just because a few (out of hundreds!) of the etymologies may have other explanations (and not neccessarily better!).--Pet'usek 18:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ez barandiaran ?

Please explain, if it really means something then it's definitely not modern Basque. --Kamitxu 21:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, ez means "no" or "not", and from googling I find that Barandiaran is a family name.
There is also a verb baranda(tu) meaning "watch" or "observe".
Can you give me more context? Where is that phrase from? --Schuetzm 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you're asking to me but if you are, the phrase is in the article, obviously. "Ez barandiaran= That which is great" --Kamitxu 23:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, forget what I wrote, I totally misunderstood you. --Schuetzm 16:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What source do you need?

What source do you need? About what? That Georgian is not North Caucasian or that there exist such theory as Dene-Caucasian? The article in its current form confuses Georgian and North Caucasian.--Nixer 15:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

All your sources. You have cited [6] (which is in Russian, so if it can be used depends on interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which places restrictions on foreign sources) and [7] from the Santa Fe Institute. So obviously the theory exists, it is a fringe theory though. Encyclopaedia Britannica [8] and the Columbia Encyclopedia [9] call it a language isolate. If the Dene-Caucasian theory is to be mentioned, IMO it is sufficiently mentioned. Izehar 15:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget that the Dene-Caucasian hypothesis is relatively "young". Although a lot more has been published on the matter, I'm giving you the few the relevant links I'm able to find and suggest that you read: Sino-Caucasian Comparative Phonology, Sino-Caucasian Comparative Glossary, A Final (?) Response to the Basque Debate in Mother Tongue 1, Word-final Resonants in Sino-Caucasian.
There is also an article Dene-Caucasian. Note: I dont add information on it (it is alreadu added), I simply deconfuse it from other "Georgian" theory which is really fringe. You can also look through Na-Dene languages article. --Nixer 15:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, you're saying:
The Georgian theory should not be confused with the the much more scientifically proved theory that Basque is ralated to Adygo-Abasin and other North Caucasian languages.
If that's not POV, I don't know what it is. How is it much more proven (sic). The Wikipedia article you are citing says:
Many linguists, in particular John Bengtson, have proposed including Basque as well. However, due to the uncertainty of comparative linguistics, this has never been demonstrated unequivocally, and most linguists do not accept that these language families are related.
That artile says that this has never been demonstrated unequivocally, whereas you are saying that it is a much more scientifically proved theory. Izehar 15:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who's written the sentence, but I haven't. I'm going to add some information to the Dene-Caucasian article and correct some claims that aren't true. The sentence you mention should be rewritten in the sense, that the hypothesis is at a similar stage as was once the Indoueropean one. A lot of work has to be done, that's true, but the arguments are pretty strong and growing every year. As I mentioned somewhere above, hundreds of cognates (many in the range of the most stable vocabulary), recurrent sound correspondences and morphological correspondences are a very good start if not more.--Pet'usek 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes because Georgian theory is not proven at all. Though what the point? I only noted that Georgian and North Caucasian are not the same things.--Nixer 15:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Georgian (related to Svan, Laz and Mingrelian and belonging to the Kartvelian or South Caucasian phylum) is only typologically similar to the North Caucasian family. While Kartvelian is Nostratic, North Caucasian isn't.
If you want to correct something, please correct, dont revert.--Nixer 15:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that languages can be "genetically related". Also, there were two obvious spelling mistakes and since the veracity of this claim is in doubt, I reverted back to the last version. It would be nice if you worked out your changes here or in your user space. Thank you for being considerate Jbetak 16:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basque speakers as funny characters

I found De los vizcaínos a los arlotes by Jorge Echagüe Burgos, that cites examples of Basque speakers in Spanish works as funny characters. What was specially new for me was:

Lo notable de esta obra es que Gaspar Gómez no sólo pone en boca de Perucho pasajes de jerigonza avascuenzada como el citado, sino que intercala en ellos palabras y expresiones tomadas del euskera (p. e., ogia, "pan"), e incluso le hace cantar un breve aunque hermoso poema de amor, que es el primer texto literario vasco impreso, anterior en casi una década al libro de poemas de Bernat Dechepare.

--Error 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syntagma vs. phrase

I'm curious if, in the section on stress, it might be better to use the word "phrase" in place of syntagma. That's really all, thanks. --Alcarilinque 14:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Difficulty

During the days when I was closer to linguistics than I am now, I often heard stories about how difficult a language Basque is. I've added a reference to "The Devil Wanted to Learn Basque" to the external references section. Could someone who's more familiar with the language add a description to the article on the relative complexity of Basque as compared with other languages, if you think it's appropriate? Waitak 07:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of the difficulty of learning a language is often best approached in relative terms, both with respect to the L1 (mother tongue) of the learner and to two different L2 (target languages). Thus, "English speakers find it easier to learn Spanish than Romanian," would be a good way to compare. The problem with making statements about absolute difficulty--"Chinese is hard to learn"--is that for all human languages, children master the phonology and grammar around the age of 4-5. This is hard to reconcile with any notion of major absolute differences. Also, such absolute statements obscure the importance of L1. For a Cantonese speaker, learning Mandarin isn't all that hard, certainly easier than it is for an English speaker.
You mentioned "relative complexity" but I think "relative distance" would be a better approach. I think that a strong case can be made that Spanish grammar is more complex than Hindi, certainly for the verbs (more forms, more irreguarlities). Despite this, English speakers find it much easier to attain a given level of fluency in Spanish than they do in Hindi because the distance, especially in terms of vocabulary, is less for English-Spanish than for English-Hindi.
For English speakers, certainly Basque is going to be harder to learn than Romance or Germanic languages and quite likely harder than for any Indo-European languages. It's possible that, for example, speakers of Quechua or the Mayan languages might find learning Basque easier than learning English. Why? They use polypersonal verbal constructions like Basque. Also, the Mayan languages are ergative-absolutive not nominative-accusative.Interlingua 04:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Basque is also said to be hard to learn by basque people. Even nowadays for all the existing different basque dialects even kids study basque verbs and correct grammar (rarely used in street live then). It is usually hard even for native basque speakers sometimes to know the correct verb and sometimes even the correct word. Been basque such and old language makes it difficult to even use commonly used words for, for example ballpen. The word in basque exists but it has been made up by the regulating organization, and most people just use a local dialect word or the spanish word (boligrafo or just boli). And that's just an example. Discussions happend when deciding a word for a cell phone (mobile phone) which ended in "mugikorra" which just means mobile and nowadays everyone uses it. Just an example to show some of the problematica due to the quite recent creation of the unified basque.

Claims of this sort are often made for many languages, and confuse the idea of learning a language (which almost all human infants do effortlessly) with learning a standard variety of a language. The difficulty of the latter depends on many factors, including the degree of divergence of one's native dialect from the standard, the frequency with which the standard is encountered, and the status of the standard. This status itself has many components, including its prestige within the community, whether it is regarded by the community as favouring one group, whether there are more cosmopolitan (or more prestigious) other languages in competition with it, and so on. ColinFine 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
For people whose maternal (only) language is Spanish (or French), Basque is as difficult as for speakers of any other language, it doesn't matter much if they are born in the conventional geographic boundaries of the Basque Country. Most of the vocabulary is totally different and the grammar, while very logical in most cases, is complex enough to make it relatively difficult. For Spanish-speakers is much easier to learn Catalan or French or even English than Basque, that's clear.
Aditionally, while you can submerge youself in other languages (for instance if you're learning Finnish you may spend some time in Finland), getting submerged in Basque is not that easy, as even where Basque is dominant, everybody knows either Spanish or French or both and, in the end, people switch to them too easily.
Personally I have only felt "forced" to use Basque with one Basque monolingual in the Pyrenees and when crossing to the North (as my French is quite worse than my Basque). Some people do favor using Basque with bad speakers as myself but most just prefer to switch languages in benefit of immediate communication but in detriment of Basque conservation. --Sugaar 23:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dene-Caucasian

Reverted the "Connections" section back to that of March 16 - the Dene-Caucasian hypothesis has been hashed out here many times, is accepted by only a very small number of linguists, and is already covered in its own article. Plus, the additions were clearly POV ("the majority is overwhelming" etc.) Ergative rlt 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the euskara in RIOJA

The euskara was spoken in Rioja before the romans age.

[edit] what about y?

This page is identified by Fagan Finder as Basque. It has translations for many of the words I tried (a little less than half). The page corresponds to what this article says in lacking the letter forms 'c', 'q' etc. but it does make frequent use of y which seems all too common to be loan words only. I know nothing about Basque other than what I've read in Empires of the Word which more or less lumps into the category of different fish along with Magyar. Is the info in this article about the use of y in Basque correct, or is this page I've stumbled across not standard Basque at all? It was an accidental Google hit on a manufactured lexeme, but I immediately recognized it as unrecognizably unfamiliar, so I pursued it. If this is a true Basque in a non-standard orthography, I'd suggest the article make mention that non-standard orthographies are sometimes encountered. MaxEnt 03:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at other pages containing similar words and it now strikes me that some orthographies substitute y for j. For example, I find yaten in this page which contains no j, and jaten in pages that contain no y. MaxEnt 06:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You are right, the page you say is written in basque, but non-standard. I dindn't read the entire text,it seems like western-dialect or so, but it's very near to standardized basque (euskara batua). Nowadays it's not usual to find texts written in non-standardized basque, but remember that euskara batua only exists since some decades ago. Before that, people used to write as they spoke. The js are usually read as y, that's why ys are used in this example. In all modern published texts, y only exists as a letter for foreign words. Well, when writing to my friends I write in our dialect and I may use some ys, but it's definitely non-standard. ;) Keta 15:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with Keta, I am also basque and in my case in our dialect we don't use ys at all. So it's just a matter of the local dialect nowadays.

'Y' is only used for foreign words, specially some Greek words. The dictionary has a few entries under 'y' and, with the sole exception of yayo, its derivate yayotasun and yoretu, all are from foreign origin. The full list is: y, yang-tao (kiwi fruit), yankee, yate (yatch), yarda (yard), yayo, yayotasun, ye-ye, yeismo (pronunciation defect, Spanish loanword), yemeniar (Yemeni), yen, yod, yola, yterbio, ytrio and yuan.

Yayo can also be written iaio but I found not an alternative spelling for yoretu. --Sugaar 23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endangered?

700,000 native speakers. I've read that most Basques don't speak BAsque as a mother tongue.

Is Basque endangered? Will it ever die?67.170.176.203 06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Well we have 3 different education models in the schools, depending on the language used in the lessons.
A model: All in spanish and basque as a language class.
B model: Half in spanish and half in basque.
D model: All in basque and spanish as a literature class.
Numbers say most kids enroll in the D model, that is THEY STUDY IN BASQUE. Which doesn't mean they use it in the street. The % of kids enrolled in the D model is even rising (even if there is starting to be some inmigrants at schools). So definetly not dying. These numbers vary through provinces been Gipuzkoa the most pro D model then Bizkaia and then Araba. The numbers I am talking about are the overall in the basque country autonomous community.
The problem is when you grow older only 47% of the university majors can be studied in basque, you make the math. Not everyone wants to study in basque and even if you want to you only have 47% the oportunity to do so. OLAIA 2006/08/26

In the Western Basque Country is NOW official and protected and as Olaia says, teached in schools regularly with most children (their parents, I guess) chosing the Basque D model, as it is the one that makes sure that your children learn good Basque, even if at home or in the town the main language is Spanish.

But in Navarre and the North the situation is very different. In the North Basque has near to zero official presence and only recently a few decorative changes have been made under pressure from EU cultural watchdogs. The lack of any form of self-government doesn't help at all, naturally. Still some 40% of the people does speak it.

In Navarre there's the situation graphically defined as Napartheid, with a bilingual "Basque-speaking" area where Basque is considered almost in parity with Spanish, a "mixed" strip where Basque has only limited rights and a "non-Basque" area that comprises most of the territory, where the situation is as pitiful as in the North legally. Only some 20% of Navarrese can speak Basque as per 2001, what is highly ironic for the language of Navarre.

Some municipalities are trying to get into the "mixed" or "Basque-speaking" area, so their children can access public schooling in Basque, yet the Navarrese goverment (pro-Spanish right wing) always puts all kind of obstacles.

But, while officiality could help, what most handicaps Basque is that everyone is bilingual and that knowledege of Spanish or French is not just compulsory but also necessary for most bussiness. If you can't go to the city and buy or work in Basque, as normally happens... in he end your only motivation is affective. So, in the end, I, a quite mediocre Basque speaker, probably will only use Basque when travelling to the North (as my Basque is much better than my French), meeting one of those isolated monolingual farmers or falling in the middle of a conversation in Basque.

While many Catalans have pushed for daily usage of Catalan by keeping talking in Catalan when replied in Spanish, Basques normally don't do that but rather switch to Spanish or French. --Sugaar 23:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basque monoglots

What is the report on the number of Basque speakers who have limited Spanish or French? And as time goes on will more or less monoglots begin to appear as a relfection of the growth and spread of the language? Ethnologue says "speakers also use Castilian or Catalan." Some information on this would be interesting.


I could say I have only met basque speakers with limited Spanish in old people living in farms (Baserriak). Must know that spanish is an official language and the spanish constitution says every spanish citizen has the right AND THE OBLIGATION of knowing spanish (even if there are inmigrants that know shit), so there is no way a kid doesn't get it at school. Maybe he/she doesn't use it at home or with friends (spanish) but definetly must learn it at school and plus at schools they don't really teach spanish as a language but more the spanish literature and stuff. Plus it is a fact that if you don't limit you tv channels to ONE, you watch spanish TV, and if you go to the movies more than onces in a year, you watch movies in spanish.
So I would definetly say it is extremely difficult to find someone with limited Spanish. Another point is we usually (basque people) make mistakes in spanish, but not due to lack of knowledge more to just the use, just the way Andalusian's (south spain) make mistakes in spanish. OLAIA 2006/08/26 3:09 AM


Ansewring your question: very few poeple are basque monogloths, most of them elderly and living in small isolated communities. I do not quite agree with some of the statements in the comment above. Many people now have the opportunity to study in basque and in basque alone, having spanish only as a subject with 3-4 hours a week of it. As a matter of fact it is becoming rare that kids study in spanish in the basque country, even if they come from spanish spaeking families. --Mrfoxtalbot (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do sound samples exist?

I'd love to hear what Basque sounds like. Can someone upload a few samples to the page? - Christopher 10:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Basque Country is just a nationalist idea, not real

This article should remove that reference, or at least clearly say that it is a nationalist idea, very discussed and not aproved by the vast majority. The historical region is, in any case, the Kingdom of Navarre.

You should know that the term "historical region" referring to Euskal Herria is used in spanish media due to the lack of a term in spanish for it. It might be and surely is a nationalist idea (not a bad idea, every country at some point has been a nationalist idea) but that doesn't make is unreal. It is a used term and this is an enciclopedia, to provide the info, wether you like it or not the term exists and is used.
Maybe you should mean 'Political Basque Country is just a nationalist idea', but nobody can deny the Basque Country, 'Euskal Herria', as a cultural or historical idea.

[edit] Theories of connections with other languages

This section was recently much elaborated, but I think these edits have done more harm than good. The problem is that the section devotes too much space to fringe / pseudoscientific theories of Basque language origins. For example, of the Dené-Caucasian connection it is said that the hypothesis is "perhaps the only one supported by some knowledgeable historical linguists". Well, if the others aren't supported by any knowledgeable historical linguists, why are they listed here in the first place - especially as the section lacks references? Most of these should be outright deleted, or if the information is to be kept, then it should go to a separate article like "Theories of Basque language origins" or something similar. But speculations that are uniformly rejected by specialists are hardly worth including in a broad-scope general article on the language. --AAikio 13:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. My aim was to reach some consensus (I have nothing against the idea of making a separate article for the theories) and to avoid hurting somebody's pride :-). And, I didn't write this sentence: ""perhaps the only one supported by some knowledgeable historical linguists". I don't know who did. I will gladly delete it.
It has been repeated many times that the Dene-Caucasian (or Macro-Caucasian) hypothesis is the most promising of the theories, but it hasn't been explained why this can be so: (1) regular phonological correspondences (including the very important non-trivial ones) have been proposed, (2) almost 250 potential lexical cognates have been found so far (majority of which belong to the stablest semantic cathegories), (3) common grammatical morphemes have been identified (see the Talk page of the DC languages), (4) typological features seem to be an indirect (which should be stressed) evidence of an old (be it areal or genetic) bond with the Caucasus.
I added some references (I'm not sure how to format them in the Wiki markup language). Since the DC theory is (if I am not mistaken) the only one that gives some references, I don't mind deleting the others, which seem to lack them. Anyway, I have nothing against replacing the whole section with a brief mention of the individual theories. The DC article is growing constantly and the Basque section is being worked on at the moment. So, it is quite unnecessary to include any long passages here.
What if we replace the section with a sentence of the type: "There have been many attempts at linking Basque with other languages and language families, such as..." (list of the names of the theories and links to the individual articles dealing with them) "..., but the majority of linguists still consider the Basque language to be a language isolate, unrelated to any other language or language family.". Or something like that?
Oh, and, in order to save some space here, in the Talk section, I will delete my old proposal for the new version of the section mentioned above + the Old talks of the Basque's affinities, ok? Anyone can look in the history of the Talk section or send me an email. I saved the discussions in a file if somebody wants them.
All in all, I think making a separate article will be the best option indeed. Really. Thanks for any comments and criticisms. What should be the title of the separate article? So the talks can be inserted in the Talk section there, once the article is created.
--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 15:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
In my understanding of the matter, most of the theories are roughly valid. The case for Iberian was largely dropped for lack of clear evidence but when reading some Iberian texts one can't help having the impression that they sound somehow lik Basque and seem to share terms and the like.
Georgian is probably the less valid nowadays. It is with NE Caucasian languages, like Chechen, that the link is made. NE Caucasian languages and Georgian have no clear link and are actually postulated as hypothetical members of different super-families. The comments on the brothership between Bilbao and Tiblisi are just frivolous and should be removed.
Dene-Caucasian is based in the link with NE Caucasian, what seems the most suggestive hypothesis in itself.
Vasconic theory is pretty good actually and explains many things that otherwise have no explanation. As the related article on pre-Indo-European says, not all pre-IE substrate has to be Basque, specially in the Mediterranean, but there is a good ground for this theory.
In my opinion, I'd reformat the section in a more comprised space, without separate titles for the different hypothesis. I'd mention Iberian. But would only mention Georgian as entry to pass to NW Caucasian. I'd ignore the extremely hypothetical Dene-Caucasian proposal (more proper of other articles surely, as Basque has ever been directly related, even in tentative manner, with any Sino-Tibetan or Na-Dene language) and go directly into Vasconic substratum theory.
In fact Vasconic languages theory must surely be mentioned as something growing in credibility and based in the findings, not just of linguistics, but with good archeological and genetical backing - and compatible with possible Caucasian and even Iberian links.
Not sure how to do that but while NW Caucasian and Iberian (and maybe even Georgian, but I'd like to see a source for that) deserve a mention, these would be better presented as apreritiff to the growing paradigm of Vasconic-Paleolitic substratum.
In any case, no separate sections but just paragraphs and links. Three or four paragraphs would do, making justice to these theories and cleaning up the section a little bit. What do you think? --Sugaar 23:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said anything so I've been bold and revamped the section adding some references. --Sugaar 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, what can be said about Basque from the genetic perspective? You can be almost perfectly sure, where Basque comes from, but you still have two choices:
1/ judging from the dominant R1b lineage in Basque males, it can be a descendant of the Cro-Magnon language from Central Asia. Hence its closest relatives are Burushaski (descendant of R2?), and then Paleoindian languages in Siberia (Ket, Nivkhi, Yukaghir, Eskymo-Aleut) and Amerind languages. However, the relationship with some Caucasian languages can't be excluded, because during the last ice age R1b was present in the Caucasus as well.
2/ Judging from the dominance of H-lineage in Basque females, it can be a descendant of the Gravettian language from Asia Minor. The Gravettian mammoth hunters (Y-haplogroup I) brought mtDNA haplogroup H to Europe 28 000 years ago. We shouldn't forget that Gravettian culture was present in today's France and the dominance of R1b can be a genetic drift that can't tell anything certain about the ethnic composition of the population that gave rise to modern Basques. If this theory is true, then Basque can be very, very distantly related to Etruscan (J2).
But this all is even more confusing, when we take into consideration the unresolved origin of Indo-European languages. If they come from today's Ukraine, they would be of Cro-Magnon origin (R1a1) and hence the most closely related languages to Basque (which doesn't seem too probable). If they came from Asia Minor, they could be distantly related to either Etruscan or perhaps to some Caucasian languages. Again, they could be related to Basque, if Basque came from Asia Minor. Choose, what you want. 82.100.61.114 15:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Your arguments may be very cogent in anthropology - I am not well-versed enough to know. They are irrelevant to linguistics. In the absence of specific evidence, it is not a safe assumption that genetically related people will speak genetically related languages. In addition to which, I am not aware of any evidence whatsoever that bears on the question of what language(s) the Cro-Magnon people spoke. It could have been something connected with Basque, or Burushaski, or Krahe's Old European (which Theo Vennemann seems to think is related to Basque.) It could just as easily have been a language which has completely vanished, leaving no remnant anywhere. --ColinFine 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This is all that genetics can say. The male lineages of Basques (and all people in Western Europe) are predominantly of Cro-Magnon origin (R1b) and may have come to Europe ca. 36 000 years ago from Central Asia, while ca. 50% of their female lineages came from Asia Minor 29 000 years ago with the bearers of the Gravettian culture. But what a language they actually speak now? The Cro-Magnon or the Gravettian one? Here genetics can't help much. But we can be practically sure that it is some of these two. The situation could be somewhat clearer, if we knew the origin of the Indo-European languages. 82.100.61.114 23:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Your argumentation confuses linguistic, genetic and archaeological concepts. "The Cro-Magnon language" and "the Gravettian language" are no well-defined entities, and there is no evidence whatosoever that the Cro-Magnons, or the people of the Gravettian cultural complex, would have spoken a single language. With current linguistic methods at least, our knowledge of the linguistic situation 29 000 - 36 000 years is simply zero. No genetic findings can change this; it is methodologically invalid to draw linguistic conclusion from genetic data. --AAikio 06:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learning

We should have something on the organizations teaching Basque (the A, B, D, X models; AEK, HABE, ikastolas,...) --Error 22:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. Can you do that? --Sugaar 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of "Basque"

Is the pronunciation of "Basque" really /bæsk/, even for speakers with the Trap-bath split? --Ptcamn 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well one thing is how "Basque" is pronnounced and another thing is how you are able to pronounce it. OLAIA nov. 3rd 2006

Merriam-Webster online suggests:

Pronunciation: 'bask, 'bäsk

Guess that the second is like /bæsk/. It has also a sound file if that's of any help.--Sugaar 23:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
For Merriam-Webster, "'bask" means /bæsk/ and "'bäsk" means /bɑsk/. At any rate, the two British pronunciation dictionaries I just consulted both give /bæsk/ as the RP pronunciation, with /bɑːsk/ as a less common/less preferred variant. —Angr 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basque Polysynthetic

In the article on Polysynthetic language Basque is given as an example of a Polysynthetic language - while there are certainly better examples of Polysynthesis than Basque I don't know if there is any support to the claim at all. Are there any reliable sources calling basque Polysynthetic? PAarticipate in thee discussion at Talk:Polysynthetic language.Maunus 08:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Language Population

Ethnologue and the University of Nevada both disagree with the "Total number of speakers" section. Does anyone have a source for this one-million-speakers idea?

Ethnologue is very poor for Basque. It's description of the dialects is totally aberrant. I lost a lot of respect for the site after reading that.
Check this for instance. It's in Basque only but based in the 2001 linguistic poll. Elebidunak means bilingual, elebidun hartzailaeak means learning bilinguals and erdeldun elebakarrak means monlingual speakers of Spanish/French. Figures are in percentages but a simple calculation gives the million speakers. There are very few Basque monolinguals but I know at least one. --Sugaar 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similarities between Ainu and Basque.

Is any information about this on Wikipedia? I'm not aware of how accurate this is but look http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/ainu.htm {usigned|168.103.71.34| 04:34, 29 November 2006}

Nah. It really seems another of those far fetched amateur guesses based in a list of words with wrong (twisted, opportunistic) meanings. For example:
  • Ama is mother, mun in Basque, not goddess (except by extesion). Ama is also mother in many other languages. In fact it seems quasi-universal (with some variants, like amma, mamma, mum, etc.).
  • Lur is not dirt but earth, soil
  • Kuraia is courage, but it is an obvious loanword
  • Jaso is to bear not "to get better"
  • Etapa is a Spanish loanword
Many are composite words, like tontordun, derivate from tontor (point, promontory) or sukor, derivate from su (fire).
Many others are just far fetched comparisons:
  • yasumi (to rest) - jaso (to bear, to support)
  • kema (leg, foot) - kemen (vigour, strength)
  • oka (man) - oka egin (to eat in excess)
  • etc.
A couple of them could pass the test maybe (aske-esku, for instance) but they are not enough to build up any minimally solid theory.
Aditionally the words are arbitrarily selected, they have no system: where are the numbers?, the basic words like fire or water?
The Berber theory was something like this one, maybe a little better.
Still some phonetic simmilarities may be found between Japanese (don't know enough about Ainu) and Basque, but 'P' and 'F' (very rare sounds/letters in Basque actually) are not among them.
--Sugaar 07:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] s and z

Can anyone provide a minimal pair for laminal s vs. apical z? —Angr 21:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

esker = gratitude, ezker = left, but if you're going to use them in a sentence, they're probably going to be definite: eskerra, ezkerra. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yet anohter: su ("fire"), zu, ("you"). --Error 00:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! —Angr 06:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It's the other way round: apical s vs. laminal z. Another example: soro (land) vs. zoro (mad). Some examples of the affricates: atso (old woman) vs. atzo (yesterday), hats (breath) vs. hatz (finger), hots (noise) vs. hotz (cold). There are also cases where the apical and laminal alternation produces merely variant forms of the same word, e.g. sorgin / zorgin (witch), esne / ezne (milk), marrazo / marraso (shark), zigilu / sigilu (stamp, from Latin sigillum). Some cases of s derive from a former z preceded by r (note the s sound combines the sibilance of z with the apicality of r), e.g. the suffix -tasun (-ness) was historically -tarzun (and still is dialectally, I think in Souletin), the word uso (dove) was urzo; similarly, some former -rtz became -st, as in bortz > bost (five). I think the s in esne arose from the variant ezne by influence from the apical pronunciation of n. Note, however, that even though some former laminals have become apicals, the most frequent sibilants in the language are still by far the laminals, z and tz. In fact, the apicals do not appear in flexive morphemes, while the laminals are common in them (instrumental case -z, "prolative" case -tzat, 2nd person verbs with z- or -zu-, verbal plurals with -z-, etc.). Finally, note that in the Biscayne dialect the apical/laminal distinction has been lost, with the fricatives s/z merging in favour of the apical sound s and the affricates ts/tz merging in favour of the laminal sound tz. Uaxuctum 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aspect

Is -t[z]en a mark of imperfective aspect or of habitual aspect? The grammatical aspect article mentions the possibility of imperfective habitual aspect, but I think of it more as habitual, unless you group it with the -t[z]en ari izan which is continuous aspect. --Error 00:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Basque Language: A Practical Introduction, by Alan R. King, p. 393 lists it as habitual. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Changed. --Error 04:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influence in other languages: V/B, F > H

lack of "v" sound (replaced by "b")

It is highly questionable if it is really due to Basque influence. Remember that Sardinian language considered to be the closest romance language to Latin even today, does NOT have a bilabial V sound either, only B. Plus, bilabial V sound has never existged in Latin either. So I don't think it is Basque influence in Spanish. 80.85.50.28 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that idea that Sardinian is closest to Latin in its original form. Sardinian seems the only Romance without direct Basque influence that also shows another "Vascoid" trait: only 5 vowels.
Notice that Romances do not derive directly from classical Latin but from Vulgar Latin, which ignored declensions and had a lot of other modifications like pronouncing "v" as consonant:

The former semivowels written in Latin as V as in vinum, pronounced /w/, and I as in iocunda, pronounced /j/, came to be pronounced /v/ and /dʒ/, respectively.

There are exceptions to this rule obviously but, apart of odd and isolated Sardinian all are in the fringes of the Basque speaking area (Spanish, Gascon, Aragonese), the same that happens with the reduction of the 7 vowels of "standard" Vulgar Latin to the 5 of Spanish, Gascon, Aragonese and Western Catalan dialects. Plus other clearly Basque-influenced modifications like the initial F>H transformation (fablar>hablar) or the differentiation between two aceptions of "to be" (1. to exist, to have qualities; 2. to be in/on/at, to stay), natural in Basque and also normal in Basque-influenced Romances (only). --Sugaar 02:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The two forms of "to be" in Romance languages have existed since Latin: most of them came from esse and stare. Also, Romanian features the same pair of copulas, though one is derived from fiere instead of esse, and there's no Basque influence there. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Also "stay" exists in English (sometimes can be used as alternative to "be in/on/at") but no Romance I know of (maybe Romanian?) makes such a radical distinction between the two verbs except Basque-influenced ones, it seems. I mean such difference does not exist in French or Italian or even Catalan or Galaico-Portuguese. --Sugaar 09:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The difference does exist in Catalan, Italian, and Portuguese (see Romance copula). As for French, the difference did exist until the two verbs merged through phonetic change. By the way, which languages are you referring to by "Basque-influenced ones"? You seem to have excluded everything but Spanish. Supadawg (talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I also heard that some linguists consider this F>H transformation a normal insider transformation, as similar transformations happened also to several other languages regardless of their origin. The most particular is, e.g., the S>H transformation in Greek and other Eastern languages, that also happened in Spanish in some words: Latin BASSUS > Spanish BAJO [báxo], Latin SAPO > Spanish JABÓN [xawón], etc. so maybe the initial F>H transformation is just another insider and proper evolution form.
Another good example could be the modern Greek language, that has almost EXACTLY the same fonetical system that Castillian Spanish, however, modern Greek has nothing to do with Spanish neither with other romance languages, nor with Basque influence. If you listen to Greek speech, it sounds like Castillian Spanish, but you will not understand the words. Fonetics are almost exactly the same with the same particularities. (Aspirated and week [d] and [g] like in Spanish, the [s] is alveolar but not dental, closer to English "sh", like in Spanish, the original Ancient Greek B is pronounced V, you can also find the English "th" sound like in Castillian Spanish spelled Z or C before E and I, the [x] sound like the one spelled in Spanish as J, etc.)
Besides, don't forget that Basque as a minority language has also been influenced by the Romance languages surrounded during its long history, and this influence may be larger than the substrate Basque had in Spanish and other languages. The main problem is that we don't know if basque language in its original form had or didn't have the F and H consonants, and in modern Basque dialects H is also mude like in Spanish, but it DOES have F!
Zoltan 80.85.57.120 19:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

We do know that Latin loans have lost f-. ficus → piku, fagus → pagu. However I do not remember cases of Latin f- → Basque h- as in Castilian and Gascon. I read somewhere of some Basque scholar with an alternative explanation for some of the coincidences, but could not find it again. If you can provide a reference to an alternative explanation mention it in the article. --Error 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I have just found the following article section in the classical Latin Wikipedia, it is worth to read:
H venit a littera F (H which comes from letter F).
I don't know if you speak Latin; the article explains that some latin words beginning with H had F in their oldest forms, like HOSTIA and HOSTIS. If it is true, the basque influence in Spanish can be questionated again. —Zoltan
The transformation rule is different but the aversion for the letter "f", specially at the beginning of word, is the same one.
Whatever the case, it is Spanish scholars who defend the Basque influence in the formation of Castilian language, and explain on it its unusual "dynamism" that makes it evolve faster and more innovatively than other Ibero-Romance languages that have remained somewhat closer to Vulgar Latin. --Sugaar 09:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basque and Hungarian (?)

Let me tell you that my native language is Hungarian, and maybe it sounds funny, but I have found some definitive common characteristics that would make people consider Basque to be an Uralic language (as Hungarian and Finnish). Let's see some examples:

  • In both languages (Basque and Hungarian) the plural mark is a -k.
    • B: euskaldun, euskaldunak / H: baszk, baszkok; B: mendi, mendiek, mendiekin / H: hegy, hegyek, hegyeket [hedj, hedjek, hedjeket]
  • There are some words that sound similar.
    • B: bake / H: béke [be:ke]
    • B: hiru / H: három [ha:rom]
    • B: zortzi / H: nyolc [njolts]

Besides, there are some similarities in the morphology and sintaxis, too. Zoltan 88.209.204.157 21:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is total nonsense. These kinds of random similarities are absolutely irrelevant in comparative linguistics, and they do not indicate any historical connection between these languages: they're just due to chance. Please see Pseudoscientific language comparison for more information. Note also that Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. --212.50.147.101 12:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the section. Even if these comments can be considered far-fetched there's no reason to delete content from a talk page. If you wanted to delete your comments you should rather use strike-through text (<s>text</s>). Or just make a further comment retracting.

Personally I have read on this before and there seems to be very little to connect. Nevertheless I am also skeptic of coincidences and when there is some more than annecdotic connection, even if the languages are clearly not related, the hypothesis of substrate or distant indirect connection can well be explored, rather than just pretending that "Basque is Uralic".

Hungarian is said to be the more "Turkic" among Uralic languages, whatever the reason, and I have also found the odd connection with Turk (aita-ata, for instance). While it's obviously not enough to get anything consistent, the data should not be just ignored. After all proto-Basques, must have come from Asia at some point in prehistory (c. 35,000 BCE probably) and also one can think in other pan-European (see Vasconic languages or Neolithic substrates (iri/iru/uri-ili/ilu-urbs-ilion-iri-uri for town/city for instance). All very hypotehtical but... who knows?

Just trying to give a more constructive perspective than just the typical systematic denial of most linguists. --Sugaar 07:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phonological Chart

Let's get charts of the full consonantal and vocalic inventory of the Basque language happening! It would improve the article a great deal. Will someone qualified to do so, please do?65.102.39.177 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to post the same suggestion, but now I'll just reiterate this one -- a chart of the phonological inventory would be a fantastic addition to this article, and I'm not qualified to make one. Froboyd 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A song

Can somebody provide a transcription of this song? I want to learn to read the language. http://www.vanillae.de/chala/media/CHA-LA_HEAD_CHA-LA_-_Euskara_TV_Version.mp3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.224.54.181 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Banoa Hemendik / Leo's Lyrics --Schuetzm 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Hello Im Basque/Spanish young man but in fact my euskara is not as good as I´d like. Anyway, I can tell by now that the song you have linked here its just a basque version of the famous dragon ball Z opening theme, broadcast some years ago in the ETB - Euskal Telebista. The author of the song refers to a man (goku) that begins this journey across the planet (banoa banoa... im leaving...) and... well... you know, I´will talk with some friends of mine in order to provide you a decent traslation. See you.


[edit] Its influence on Spanish

I read somewhere that Spanish overall stress and pitch is based on the Basque one (as Spanish as a separate language seems to be born in a former Basque speaking area in La Rioja). Is this correct? if so, it may be interesting to note it in the article. Mountolive | Talk 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Basque stress varies regionally, so it would be difficult to decide. --Error 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basque lettering

Also, despite not having a separate alphabet whatsoever, Basque is often written in distinctive letters, specially in signs. Some mention/info about this would be interesting. Mountolive | Talk 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have provided some lines and links in Spanish. Don't know if there are similar pages in English. A clearer image than the stela would be good too. --Error 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Clear" Basque influences?

In the case of Castilian (Spanish), we find the following clear Basque substrate influences:
  • lack of "v" sound (replaced by "b")
  • simple five vowel system
  • transformation of initial "f" into mute "h": fablar → hablar (this is even more marked in Gascon)
  • differentiation between two meanings of "to be" (exist and stay): ser and estar (like Basque: izan and egon)

The second and fourth "influences" don't really convince me. Latin only had five vowels, too (although it had phonemic vowel length). The distinction between ser and estar came straight from Romance. Italian has the same thing with essere and stare, and French used to have the distinction as well. In any case, these supposed influences are anything but "clear". - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put a link to History of the Spanish language#Possible Basque influence that mentions a non-Basque hypothesis. Can we remove the dubious tag? --Error 21:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basque grammar and Basque verbs

Fulfilling a promise I made to Sugaar last year, I have finally started uploading an article dedicated to Basque grammar. Because it is such an extensive subject, I have split off the section on the Basque verb and made it a separate article. There are good precedents for this in Wikipedia since the more fully described languages not only have a separate grammar article but also a special article covering the verb in detail. Even so, the main grammar article is going to be very long because there is a lot to say! (I have a long-term project to put up grammars of a growing number of languages; you can see which ones I've finshed so far on my user page.)

The grammar article is still incomplete. I actually wrote the material I've just posted last year, but I didn't finish the grammar then, so there are still some parts missing. I consider the noun phrase section complete, and also the verb article, but the syntax section is incomplete. The next subtopic within it is supposed to be on Grammatical Relations, a very important issue not properly covered in what I have posted so far. This should include a discussion of Basque ergativity and transitivity types, but also a general explanation of how grammatical relations are expressed in Basque through both case markers and (for the nuclear cases) verbal indexing; both case marking and verb indices have been presented already (under noun phrases and the verb, respectively) but not the larger picture of how these work together in the Basque sentence. The subject/object pro-drop issue should also be treated here.

Following that, my plan would be for the rest of the Syntax section to go through Coordinating conjunctions, Relative clauses, Complement clauses, Conditional and concessive clauses, Circumstantial clauses...

The grammar article could conclude with a section on the Basque lexicon, discussing general issues (loanwords, neologisms...), derivation and lexical compounds.

I have omitted phonology because this is already covered in the main Basque language article (unless it is thought better to move that section to the grammar article?).

Other elements are also missing or incomplete, for instance the bibliography is for now only a token bibliography, and a lot of references could be inserted. Anyone care to help? Any feedback? Alan --A R King 16:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a language isolate

Basque language is considered to be rooted in Spanish and French, why would they call this a language isolate since it is obviously influenced by these two cultures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.247.42.124 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly it is untrue to say that Basque is considered to be rooted in Spanish and French - Basque is believed to have existed in the Iberian peninsula long before the arrival of the Romans. Secondly the definition of a language isolate is not related to whether a language has been influenced by its neighboring languages or not, it has to do with the languages origins - whether it has any sister languages so to speak. While it is true that Basque has been influenced by Spanish and French during the past centuries no actual sister languages of Basque are known.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counting - Celtic similarity

I am certainly not suggesting that Basque is related to Celtic (obviously it is not), but could there be some borrowing as regards numbers and counting? The Basque word for 'twenty' is stated to be 'hogei', which seems remarkably similar to the Welsh 'ugain' (pronounced "eegain" in south Wales, though in north Wales "u" is pronounced somewhat as in French). More particularly, Basque like Welsh uses multiples of the word for 'twenty', to denote 'forty', 'sixty', etc. Thus the Welsh for 'sixty' is 'trigain' (literally, 'threetwenty'). Is such a system used in other languages? Digressing, I can relate to the comment about learners of Basque having the problem that Basque speakers are fluent in French or Spanish and readily revert to one of those languages. Likewise, Welsh speakers are fluent in English and all to readily speak in English! Alvintim (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

==

Systems based on twenty are and were quite common, that's no proof of genetic relationship. Irish used to use a system based on 20, Gaelic still does, French has a hybrid system using 20...
I'd seriously recommend that before anyone comes up with another magic link they read Larry Trask's History of Basque!. Quoting page 275 on hogei: There have been various attempts at deriving it from Celtic, given the existance of Brythonic forms like Middle Welsh 'ugeint', Cornish 'ugens' and Breton 'ugent', but the reconstructed Proto-Celtic '*wi-kant-i' is a phonologically impossible source, and Michelena [...] categorically rejects a Celtic origin.
Just a general hint: when you're coming up with a possible etymology, remember that you're dealing with history here so unless you're talking with a modern, recent loan, you must compare the forms that would have been in use when the word was borrowed. Plus, you always have to provide at least a theory on what the motivation for borrowing this particular term would have been. One can see why the Basques would borrow a term like errota (mill) from Latin as this was a new thing for them. But borrowing the word for 20 would be quite odd, since the whole system is native Basque up to 999 and you'd have to come up with a really good reason for this. --Akerbeltz 11:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)]
There is also the coincidence of bi (2) and Latin bis. Probably Latin etymology has an explanation, though. --Error (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Alvintim (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)I am at a loss to know why Akerbeltz lays down a rule that "you always have to provide at least a theory on what the motivation for borrowing [a] particular term would have been". If one can provide a TENABLE theory, obviously that's fine. When a language goes back into pre-history,though, any such "theory" is likely to be mere speculation. Why cannot one propose a link even in the absence of a theory?Alvintim (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yes, insert the word 'tenable'... it's what I meant but omitted because I thought that would be obvious. You can speculate of course but it's helpful to make it clear that you're speculating. It's not "my" rule by the way, go to any linguisitic lecture on etymologies and you'll hear about this, it's one of the "golden rules" of how-to. Thing is, speculation is easy to do, far too easy perhaps, and then other people usually end up having to mop up afterwards because other people love to take specualtion as theory, theory then becomes "truth" and suddenly the papers are writing about "conclusive evidence that Basque is related to Ossetian". I guess it's "speculation fatigue" to some degree about the "Basque word X is from Y". --Akerbeltz 13:26, 17 February 2008 (GMT)]
You can propose all the links you like without any theory, actually thats seems to be the rule rather than the exception when it comes to proposals of basque relations to other languages. But if you want to investigate a languages past proposals that are not based in a tenable theory are of no use. And as akerbeltz says for a theory to be tenable it has to not only be possible but also probable. Probability rises with the number of arguments provided in favour of a theory. For an etymology to be probable it should not only present likeness among two words but also have a motivation - starting with proving that the two languages between which a relation is proposed has in fact been in contact. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

__________

In my opinion, coincidences such as the one mentioned by Alvintim, if are not mere coincidences, probably reflect a Basque > Celtic borrowing, and not the opposite: advancing Celtic culture would have absorbed terms from the pre-existent (and hypothetic, of course) Bascoid substratum if anything.

In any case, you need a scholarly reference to reflect any theory in Wikipedia. Self-research is not valid. So, either find a valid source or let it be. --Sugaar (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish people would research more before charging in with these grand revelations about Basque and it's relationship to the language of dolphins. Basque bi derives from earlier biga via regular (in Basque) loss of intervocalic g. Could I please suggest to anyone who is interested in the question of the relationship between Basque and the rest to read either Mitxelena's Fonetic a Historica Vasca or Trask's The History of Basque? If nothing else, they're fascinating books that deserve reading but they'll also explain why you can't just look at the modern shape of two words from two different languages and say hey presto. Akerbeltz 22:44, 05 April 2008 (UTC)]

[edit] References?

I've just added a small section on the numbers used by Basque millers, I have the necessary references but I can't work out how to creat the link >.<. The work I'm referencing to is

Aguirre Sorondo, A "Tratado de Molinología: Los molinos en Guipúzcoa" Donostia: Eusko Ikaskuntza, 1988

Any help would be welcome, eskerrik asko :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akerbeltz (talk • contribs) 16:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Check: WP:Footnotes.

Or in other words:

<ref>insert reference here</ref>

This code can be generated with the corresponding button on top right of the edit box.

In the References (or Sources) section there must be the following code:

<references/>

... or:

{{reflist}}

--Sugaar (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Aran Valley it's not a basque name. The name Aran provides from Aranosios or Arenosios, the ancient celtic tribe of the valley. The basque word haran,(valley), is only a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.20.106 (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)