Reconstruction of substrata residue demands a high level of competence in methodological linguistic premises. In this paper we first of all undertake a thorough discussion of the methodological flaws and weaknesses detected in the reconstruction of Palaeo–Basque. We then take issue with some misplaced conclusions drawn by the Basque linguist Joseba Lakarra when he dismisses any genealogical link between Basque and Palaeo–Sardinian. We make a powerful point for ascertaining a complete match of phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical diachronic rules between the two reconstructed languages, so as to provide compelling evidence of their common ancestral origin. Finally, we criticise the overall lack of toponymic data in Lakarra’s operational rules, which hampers a correct comparison between the two proto–systems and prevents the Basque scholar from assessing the telling support for evidence as to the common evolution of Paleo–Basque and Palaeo–Sardinian.

Protovascuence y paleosardo: reconstrucción y comparación

BLASCO FERRER, EDOARDO
2016

Abstract

Reconstruction of substrata residue demands a high level of competence in methodological linguistic premises. In this paper we first of all undertake a thorough discussion of the methodological flaws and weaknesses detected in the reconstruction of Palaeo–Basque. We then take issue with some misplaced conclusions drawn by the Basque linguist Joseba Lakarra when he dismisses any genealogical link between Basque and Palaeo–Sardinian. We make a powerful point for ascertaining a complete match of phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical diachronic rules between the two reconstructed languages, so as to provide compelling evidence of their common ancestral origin. Finally, we criticise the overall lack of toponymic data in Lakarra’s operational rules, which hampers a correct comparison between the two proto–systems and prevents the Basque scholar from assessing the telling support for evidence as to the common evolution of Paleo–Basque and Palaeo–Sardinian.
Reconstruir substratos lingüísticos a partir de sus vestigios requiere una profunda competencia de las premisas metodológicas. En este trabajo se trata primeramente la discusión crítica de las deficiencias en la recostrucción del protovascuence para después refutar algunas conclusiones del lingüista J. Lakarra en su rechazo de cualquier conexión entre protovascuence y paleosardo. Se subraya la necesidad de reconocer la total equivalencia de las reglas de desarrollo fonológico, morfosintáctico y léxico en ambas lenguas con objeto de ofrecer una prueba incontestable de su origen común. Finalmente se objeta la total ausencia de datos toponímicos en el método de Lakarra, lo que dificulta la correcta comparación entre ambos protosistemas e impide al investigador vasco valorar el neto apoyo que dicho material ofrece para identificar la común evolución de protovascuence y paleosardo.
Substrata research, Historical linguistics, Paleo–Basque, Palaeo–Sardinian, Lingüística histórica, Protovascuence, Paleosardo
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
liburna.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: versione editoriale
Dimensione 4.7 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
4.7 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11584/199850
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact