Talk:Origin of the Basques

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Linguistic Evidence

What is that section actually proving? Or trying to prove? Metallurgy was an import in the vast majority of cultures so the fact Basque, along with most other languages, ended up borrowing metallurgical terms (beyond iron/copper/solver/gold) proves very little. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: basques are R1b. Then NOT native origin: They are Indoeuropeans recently settled.

Basque people: its like indoeuropeans french o or spanish people. Basque lenguage: koine celt-iberian-latin, very recent (III BC).

Indo-European is R1a. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics

"The Basque Paradigm: Genetic Evidence of a Maternal Continuity in the Franco-Cantabrian Region since Pre-Neolithic Times" The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 90, Issue 3, 486-493, 23 February 2012 [1]: abstract says " We detected signals of the expansion of these haplogroups at ∼4,000 years before present (YBP) and estimated their separation from the pan-European gene pool at ∼8,000 YBP, antedating the Indo-European arrival to the region. Our results clearly support the hypothesis of a partial genetic continuity of contemporary Basques with the preceding Paleolithic/Mesolithic settlers of their homeland." Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And even more recently, "The Expanded mtDNA Phylogeny of the Franco-Cantabrian Region Upholds the Pre-Neolithic Genetic Substrate of Basques"[2] (entire article). "The seclusion and diversity of these female genetic lineages support a local origin in the Franco-Cantabrian area during the Mesolithic of southwestern Europe, ~10,000 years before present (YBP), with signals of expansions at ~3,500 YBP. These findings provide robust evidence of a partial genetic continuity between contemporary autochthonous populations from the Franco-Cantabrian region, specifically the Basques, and Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups. Furthermore, our results raise the current proportion (≈15%) of the Franco-Cantabrian maternal gene pool with a putative pre-Neolithic origin to ≈35%, further supporting the notion of a predominant Paleolithic genetic substrate in extant European populations." No mention of Cro-Magnon. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But Cro-Magnon is implied - "Paleolithic hunter-gatherer groups" - so it is either them, or their direct descendants in the area, who technologically would have been more or less equivalent.

why is there still stuff about post ice age R1b expansion. When it is now concluded 100% that this came from eastern europe in the bronze age. Sykes and oppenheimer nonsense need not be included. Its just wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.238.7 (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. Wikipedia's own page on Haplogroup R1b makes clear the origin of the Y-chromosome haplogroup. The way this Basque article is written, it seems that someone tacked on the newer research which makes for a very confusing read. The article needs a top-to-bottom revision. RobotBoy66 (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete

Rather odd is this:

The main hypotheses about the origin of the Basques are:
*A
*B, but this one is now obsolete
*C, but this one is now obsolete

It kind of gives you only one serious option while simultaneously giving the idea of there being some sort of dispute. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if one can call it dispute but outliers always attract attention and due to the striking differences between the Basque and their neighbouring, very clearly Indo-European neighbours, have attracted all sorts over the last centuries, from serious scholars and scientists to crackpots. Unfortunately some of the less serious opinions put forward have been so prominent that you can't just ignore them. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Origin of the Basques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Basque-Caucasian hypothesis, is not the Georgian genetics and not Georgian language

In article the Caucasian-Basque language hypothesis is presented in deliberately grotesque silly look. Obviously outdated data are used for criticism, at the same time the genetic material which also doesn't have any relation to a subject is attracted.This bransh of the Basque-Caucasian hypothesis carries obviously outdated lines because modern scientists don't find it possible to pull together the North Caucasian languages and Kartvelian. They are parted even in different macrofamilies. "Some researchers(sorry, who is specifically?) have propounded the similarities between the Basque language and the Caucasian languages, especially the Georgian language (Georgian has no relationship even with the next North Caucasian!!!)And further vast idle talk of haughty contents: "The comparison between the matrilineal and patrilineal DNA of the native peoples from the Basque Country and Georgia has allowed the discovery of significant differences. The hypothesis that related both populations is only based on the typological similarities, which is never a good marker of linguistic kinship. These superficial similarities in the linguistic typologies do not seem to accompany a genetic relation at a population level".And has all this what relation to a real subject? Any! We reads criticism which is based only on old hypotheses from which - linguists (including caucasiologists refused long ago).What and whom refutes this verbose statement? Although the idea of a genetical relationship between Basque and Caucasian languages was envisaged by 20th century linguists like Alfredo Trombetti, René Lafon and Karl Bouda, it wasn't properly formulated until circa 1970, when the Polish geographer Bogdan Zaborski grouped Basque, Caucasian languages and Burushaski into an Asianitic family. In the 90's, the American linguist John Bengtson proposed a Macro-Caucasian (also called Vasco-Caucasian) phylum comprising Basque, North Caucasian1 and Burushaski and being part of a larger Dene-Caucasian (also called Sino-Caucasian) phylum comprising Sino-Tibetan, Yenisseian and Na-Dené, first posited by the Russian linguists Sergei Starostin and Sergei Nikolayev1.Why you have no word about works of John D. Bengtson Materials for a Comparative Grammar of the Dene-CaucaLanguagessian (Sino-Caucasian) Languages;Basque and the other Mediterranean languages;Sino-Caucasian Macrophylum: Bengtson 1991;Wider genetic affiliations of the chinese language--Wrkan (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"without the possibility of finding any kind of relationship between the Basque language and other modern languages in other regions."

This statement seems unjustified to me. It presumes that not only was basque uninfluenced by other languages but that basque and/or related extinct iberian languages could not have influenced other languages. I don't see how this inference can be made from "native". It's pretty clear that if an ancestor of the basque language had influenced sumerian several millenia ago, it could in no way be deduced from that fact that sumerian was the ancestor of the basque language. This definition needs to be fixed. Comiscuous (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the sentence refers to a common ancestor according to the tree model. In terms of influences, it's obvious that Basque has given and received influences vis-à-vis other languages, and to the best of my knowledge nobody denies that. --Jotamar (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a very clumsy way of saying "it's a language isolate", in which case I agree that this could be worded much better. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About HAITZ and HARRI

Yesterday, I took the liberty to correct a mistake I had found, but I see that it has been reverted, as somebody considers that it is irrelevant to the point. Here is the original text:

Some vasconists have, in the past, suggested that Basque may have several words, all related to tools, that are derived from the root word for "stone", haitz. (...)

Well, giving correct translations IS very relevant to the point, as the Basque word for stone is, has been, and is likely to still be the noun harri, not the noun haitz, wihich means rock, crag (https://hiztegiak.elhuyar.eus/eu/haitz). A synonym for haitz is arroka, by the way.

As far as I know, we speak about the Stone Age (Harri Aroa): in English, it is rock art (art rupestre / arte rupestre / labar arte), and early humans' tools were made of stone, not of rock. Treuiller (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

haitz can be translated both as 'rock' or 'stone', and in the context of toolmaking 'stone' is the more appropriate English term as you wouldn't talk about a 'rock knife'. But by all means we can change that to 'rock, stone'. The semantic fields between languages often don't match exactly but that's not really an issue here. What I deemed inappropriate was the addition of 'arroka' as it has absolutely no bearing on the haitz/aizkora debate, many words have synonyms but there is no need to list them all every time we debate a particular word unless it's pertinent to the discussion. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here I go again, as I strongly disagree with the text.
First, your current edit, with an addition ([citation needed], ) I justly find very often in many articles here in Wikipedia:
haitz can be translated both as 'rock' or 'stone' [citation needed], and in the context of toolmaking 'stone' is the more appropriate English term as you wouldn't talk about a 'rock knife'. But by all means we can change that to 'rock, stone'. The semantic fields between languages often don't match exactly but that's not really an issue here. What I deemed inappropriate was the addition of 'arroka' as it has absolutely no bearing on the haitz/aizkora debate, many words have synonyms but there is no need to list them all every time we debate a particular word unless it's pertinent to the discussion. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
So, you deemed that adding the word arroka is inappropriate, as it has no bearing on the haitz/aizkora debate. Still, pretending that the root word for stone is haitz is everything but appropriate, as the word stone is harri (in Unified Basque and in Northern dialects; in Southern dialects, arri), and haitz / harkaitz / arroka are something else. Personally, as a non-native speaker of English, I have always found it funny when parents tell their kids not to throw rocks, when what those children are actually throwing is harriak / des pierres / piedras... for me, stones. But English is English, and I must accept both what is logic and funny to me.
On your profile, I see that your knowledge / level of Basque shows a 3, and a 4 and a 5 in Gaelic, and that German, Cantonese and English are presented above at even higher levels. Congratulations, especially for your effort to learn Basque. As for me, I have got a university degree in Basque Philology (final revalidation exam: Bikain). I think I know my language, I use every day, most of my time, and I have been collaborating on the Basque version of Wikipedia for years, mainly correcting the style (Nor/Nork, H, several mistakes due to a better command of Spanish or French, vocabulary...). Even if your level in Basque was 2 on that scale, you do know that stone = harri, harri = stone. On what context can you translate haitz as stone?
Yesterday, after reading your reply, I had a look at some of my dictionaries (I'll have a look at Lhande's bilingual later later):
-Azkue's trilingual,
-Mokoroa's bilingual,
-Diccionario Retana de Autoridades (Basque-Spanish),
-Orotarikoa (I found this: https://www.euskaltzaindia.eus/index.php?option=com_oehberria&task=sarreraIkusi&Itemid=413&lang=eu&id=281486),
-Euskaltzaindia's latest one (https://www.euskaltzaindia.eus/index.php?option=com_bilatzaileaweb&task=indizeaKontsultatu&view=emaitzaazaldu&query=haitz)...
-Also here (https://www.ehu.eus/eeh/ the most complete Basque dictionary ever).
The only coincidence between haitz and stone appears in Azkue's dictionary (and in Retana's), when it shows that in BN-ald (meaning "Lower Navarrese, Aldude (a village)", it means "piedra" (Haitza haitzaren gainean igorri dako, le ha arrojado piedra sobre piedra, il lui a jeté pierre sur pierre). That's all. And everywhere in that dialect's domain (also in Aldude), they mainly use the word harri to refer to stone. I don't think that based on that (were you aware of that limited local meaning, by the way?), it can be claimed that haitz is the root word for stone in Basque.
The "ground", if any, for such a far-fetched theory might be this one (if you don't speak any Spanish, you'd be able to translate it easily):
haitz.
Etim. Según una opinión muy extendida, haitz es el primer elemento de varios nombres de instrumentos: aizto, aizkora, haitzur, etc. Según Vinson (Études... (París, 1878), 238s.) es la que sostienen "les savants du pays". Al parecer, A. Baudrimont (Histoire des Basques ou Euscaldunais primitifs (París, 1854)), sostiene ya que aizkora 'hacha', viene de aitz. Aún si suponemos que esto es así, no se trata de algo excepcional puesto que, por ejemplo, la segunda parte de al. messer 'navaja' está considerada por todos como emparentada con lat. saxum 'peña', lo mismo que haitz.
... which is the umpteenth example of considering Basque as a New Age language, for cheap Linguistics à la Von Däniken.
You call the shots, I'm not going to re-revert your edits, just to have mine re-reverted ad nauseam, but if you really need to mention that false relationship between the Basque words stone / rock, may I suggest that you also mention the context of that theory, everything but serious.
I can't send you any proof of it, but I think I heard Xabier Kintana (a member of Euskaltzaindia) point out at some interview that since prehistoric tools were made of stone, not of rock, that rendered the haitz > aizto explanation completely senseless.
Best regards, Treuiller (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning your superior knowledge of Basque :) but this debate hinges not only on a knowledge of Basque but also English - and ideally avoiding going via a third language such as Spanish or French because that really starts to turn things into a game of Chinese whispers.

Yes, haitz mostly means rock/boulder, but turning to someone who has impeccable bona fides in Basque AND English, Gorka Aulestia, and his Basque-English dictionary, he states: haitz (L, LN, U) n. rock, stone. There are also various stone types which use haitz, not harri, such as haitzurdin 'marble' (though this may be a neologism, idk) and perhaps more interestingly, limestome can be both karaitz/kare-haitz AND kare-harri.

Also relevant is Trask's Etymological Dictionary where under haitz he states By far the most widespread sense for this word is ‘crag’, and this is also the sense it has in the numerous toponyms and surnames containing it. In contrast, the sense of ‘stone’ is only sparsely recorded in LN, but this sense is also prominent in the compounds containing the word.

I share your abhorrence of people trying to turn Basque into some kind of myffic thing that it isn't and the bad linguistics that often accompany such endeavours, but I think it's really hard to argue that haitz does not, at least in some areas and/or historically, also covers what in English we call 'stone'. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for not questioning my knowledge of Basque, AND ESPECIALLY for this recent modification, which presents the article much better:
(...) that are derived from a word for "stone", haitz (though this primarily means "rock, boulder" in modern Basque).
My point has always been about presenting things properly: if haitz used to be the Basque word for stone millennia ago, be it, but some proof would come in handy, not just conjectures: the word for stone is harri, from East to West. I also knew of kare-haitz, but the one we mainly use is kareharri (similarly, hareharri: harehaitz is unknown); as for marble, you're right about harriurdin (quite recent): marmol and harrinabar are also used.
I am very grateful to you for mentioning Trask's Etymological Dictionary, one I had never heard of: I immediately downloaded it. That clearly shows that my knowledge is not that superior: I hope my university diploma won't get invalidated ;).
I have read the following texts under the entry for our common favourite word:
haitz (L LN), aitz (G HN L LN Z), atx (B L) n. ‘crag’, ‘stone’. 1187, ca. 1620.
OUO. B form by P30. By far the most widespread sense for this word is ‘crag’, and this
is also the sense it has in the numerous toponyms and surnames containing it. In
contrast, the sense of ‘stone’ is only sparsely recorded in LN, but this sense is also
prominent in the compounds containing the word. The possibility that *(h)aitz- {v.
infra} is the same item suggests a reconstruction *anetz, by P1, but this is far from certain.
'atxarrano (B), txerrano (B) n. ‘a certain bird of prey, larger than a kite’ **** (zool.)
[species unidentified] [FHV 157-158] + arrano ‘eagle’.
(h)aitzarte, (B) atxarte n. ‘pass between two crags’. Ca. 1800. + arte {[1]} ‘between’.
(h)aitzulo n. ‘cave’. Ca. 1760. + zulo ‘hole’.
(h)aitzurdin, (B) atxurdin n. ‘marble’. + urdin ‘blue’ (see ur).
haizatu (L LN) vt. ‘throw stones at, stone’, TS ‘frighten (birds)’. + -tu VFS; -a- by
W**{17}.
haizkatu (L LN) vt. ‘throw stones at, stone’, TS ‘frighten (birds)’. + -ka adverbial + -tu
VFS.
*(h)aitz - Hypothetical stem possibly underlying certain tool-names.
OUO. Very many have wanted to see this as haitz ‘stone’, and hence as representing a
time when the Basques had a Neolithic culture and made their tools from stone. This is
possible, but far from certain. First, why should a tool-name be based on the name of the
material it is made from? Second, are stone shears and stone pincers really plausible?
Some of the forms suggest a possible reconstruction *anetz, by P1. Note that haizkora
‘axe’ does not appear to belong to this group.
haitzur (L LN Z), aitzur (G HN L LN S Z), háitzür (Z), atxur (B), haintzur (L LN) n.
‘mattock’ (a kind of short-handled heavy hoe). B form by P30. Final element
obscure.
aizturtu (old LN **) ****{? l. aitzurtuvt. ‘dig’ Az.}
aizto (R), ainzto (R HN) n. ‘knife’. Final element obscure. {Monomorphemic <
  • anezto? See § The native lexicon.}
Concerning Aulestia's bona fides, even if I admit his more than superior knowledge of the language and his merit, I didn't even look up in his bilingual dictionary for these reasons:
1) The first one is personal, hence, arguable: the map of the dialects before his foreword —the ones he represented in his dictionary— presents an unexpected dialectal distribution, splitting the area of the language in two, completely omitting Upper Navarrese, but presenting Roncalese, a dialect which was virtually extinct when the books were published, unlike the one he chose to ignore.
2) The second one is that, for some particular reason, he made up at least one word: I remember Miren Azkarate mentioning his makinidatzi ("to type", "to typewrite") on ETB, a word without any tradition in the language. The verb "to type" was makinaz idatzi, idazmakinaz idatzi in the late 1980s; nowadays, we mainly say ordenagailuaz idatzi, klabierraz idatzi, teklatuaz idatzi to refer to what I am currently doing (or just idatzi, of course).
As long as the rules of the language are taken into account, coining neologisms is welcome (post-truth, a concept which I doubt existed in the 1980s, is the example I always give, just like izozmendi), but making words Sabino Arana-like is simply another story.
Anyway, I notice what he also wrote this:
haitz (L, LN, U) n. rock, stone. Itsasontziak haitza jo du. The ship has struck a rock. Cf. harkaitz.
His example clearly mentions the first English noun he listed; all in all, I find it hard to believe that Azkue had not collected that meaning in the rest of Lapurdi and Basse Navarre, but those things happen.
I also had a look at Lhande's dictionary:
HAITZ I— L. N. (H.) rocher. Xori batek lehenago aldara lezake bihika Kaukaseko haitza (J. Ete. M. H.) un oiseau déplacerait plus tôt (grain par grain) parcelle par parcelle le rocher du Caucase. [Contr. de haŕi-gaiz.]
--katu N. ald. — 1º lapider; — 2º chasser, renvoyer.
-ukaldi N. ald. coup de pierre.
HAITZ II — is about the oak (haritz > haitz)
Sorry for the French and Spanish texts, but most major research on Basque linguistics has traditionally being written in one of these languages. Still, I see that my Basque-Chinese whisper hasn't been useless literature.
Best regards! Treuiller (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we managed to resolve this, benetan pozten naiz :) Not to worry about the French/Spanish, I can read both under protest, I was just trying to try and use Basque<>English sources if possible to avoid noise from going Basque > Spanish/French > English.
I get your point about the relevance of rock vs stone BUT on the other hand, given the stone age ended some 5000 years ago, a degree of semantic shift would not be surprising and rock and stone are not that far apart, semanatically, so just because haitz is primarily a rock/boulder/crag today does not entirely exclude the possibility of it meaning 'stone' 5000 years ago or at least including it. After all, for example the widely shared Germanic root for 'stone' derives from a PIE root meaning 'to stand' and that's a lot more distance than rock <> stone. But that's speculation in any case. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS I think your PhD is safe, sadly Trask never got to publish it, he sadly died before it was finished and a colleague of his ended up kindly publishing the draft on the internet, so it's a little more obscure that fully published materials on Basque. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Basques&oldid=1208560659"