"articles in romance first appeared after the germanic invasions "
Didn´t proto-Italian or vulgar/vernacular Latin had articles?
Didn´t proto-Italian or vulgar/vernacular Latin had articles?
gaining grammatical complexities
<<Italian has essere and stare too. Was Italian influenced by Basque ? >>
question first: is Italian essere and stare used in exactly the same way that ser & estar are?
question first: is Italian essere and stare used in exactly the same way that ser & estar are?
First queston, is there the need to use them exactly the same way? Even more, Basque does not have two verbs which are exactly used the same way as ser and star. Essere means the same as ser and stare is like estar, the only difference is that Spanish consideres some things as transitional and hence uses estar when Italian on the other hand uses essere but the important question is the distinction between transitions and permanent state of being. This distinction is made both by Italian and Spanish and both use essere/stare ser/estar. So I don't think that Basque influenced Spanish in that aspect when it can be explained simply as a feature that other Romance languages have but in the case of Spanish it evolved differently on its own .
<<"articles in romance first appeared after the germanic invasions "
Didn´t proto-Italian or vulgar/vernacular Latin had articles? >>
I don't know about that.
What I do know is that in the Oaths of Strassbourg (which contains one of the first examples of a romance language distinct from latin), definite articles were clearly *not* used (Gallo-Romance) where romance would later come to employ them, indicating that they were either not yet present, or that they were considered too base to use.
I also know that Visigoths and other germanic invaders who had acquired the latin language were speaking it in such a way as to fit their own speech habits (calquing it), making "unorthodox" word-for-word translations of butchered latin from germanic. It was at this time that germanic languages were acquiring or had already acquired definite article use from their demonstratives.
So to answer your question, probably not.
Didn´t proto-Italian or vulgar/vernacular Latin had articles? >>
I don't know about that.
What I do know is that in the Oaths of Strassbourg (which contains one of the first examples of a romance language distinct from latin), definite articles were clearly *not* used (Gallo-Romance) where romance would later come to employ them, indicating that they were either not yet present, or that they were considered too base to use.
I also know that Visigoths and other germanic invaders who had acquired the latin language were speaking it in such a way as to fit their own speech habits (calquing it), making "unorthodox" word-for-word translations of butchered latin from germanic. It was at this time that germanic languages were acquiring or had already acquired definite article use from their demonstratives.
So to answer your question, probably not.
<<First queston, is there the need to use them exactly the same way? Even more, Basque does not have two verbs which are exactly used the same way as ser and star. Essere means the same as ser and stare is like estar, the only difference is that Spanish consideres some things as transitional and hence uses estar when Italian on the other hand uses essere but the important question is the distinction between transitions and permanent state of being. This distinction is made both by Italian and Spanish and both use essere/stare ser/estar. So I don't think that Basque influenced Spanish in that aspect when it can be explained simply as a feature that other Romance languages have but in the case of Spanish it evolved differently on its own . >>
See, that's the trick. It's not whether there are two verbs--we know that already. The distinction is in "how" they are used.
I read that one of the Basque verbs denotes changeable qualities; the other, permanent. *THIS* is the influence of Basque over Spanish, since Castilian has an undeniable Basque substratum. Upon learning the V Latin dual verbs, they would naturally associate them to their own native ones.
See, that's the trick. It's not whether there are two verbs--we know that already. The distinction is in "how" they are used.
I read that one of the Basque verbs denotes changeable qualities; the other, permanent. *THIS* is the influence of Basque over Spanish, since Castilian has an undeniable Basque substratum. Upon learning the V Latin dual verbs, they would naturally associate them to their own native ones.
"I read that one of the Basque verbs denotes changeable qualities; the other, permanent."
Ok, but the fact that Spanish makes the same distinction does not mean that it was influenced by Basque. Why do you think Italian has essere and stare as well? To make the same distinction. The substratum of Basque over Spanish is not really true.
Ok, but the fact that Spanish makes the same distinction does not mean that it was influenced by Basque. Why do you think Italian has essere and stare as well? To make the same distinction. The substratum of Basque over Spanish is not really true.
<<Ok, but the fact that Spanish makes the same distinction does not mean that it was influenced by Basque. Why do you think Italian has essere and stare as well? To make the same distinction. The substratum of Basque over Spanish is not really true. >>
WHAT???
Not really true???
you've got to be kidding me. Who were the last people to acquire Ibero-Romance from the conquered Celt-Iberians? Who to this day have yet to be converted (I'm not suggesting that Basques need to start speaking Spanish, only that they are the last hold-outs of a uniquely different language from romance)???
Why do Castilians pronounce latin 'v' as 'b' (vivere as bibere)??? because Basque speakers couldn't pronounce Italic -v- (Basque lacks a 'v' sound), so they substituted the next closest sound: 'b'
also initial Italic f- > h- (fabulare>hablar), the 'f' not being found in Basque as well
Dude, if you speak Spanish, you speak Romance like a Basque! It's already attested to be so.
WHAT???
Not really true???
you've got to be kidding me. Who were the last people to acquire Ibero-Romance from the conquered Celt-Iberians? Who to this day have yet to be converted (I'm not suggesting that Basques need to start speaking Spanish, only that they are the last hold-outs of a uniquely different language from romance)???
Why do Castilians pronounce latin 'v' as 'b' (vivere as bibere)??? because Basque speakers couldn't pronounce Italic -v- (Basque lacks a 'v' sound), so they substituted the next closest sound: 'b'
also initial Italic f- > h- (fabulare>hablar), the 'f' not being found in Basque as well
Dude, if you speak Spanish, you speak Romance like a Basque! It's already attested to be so.
Well, we were talking about ser/estar really. Explain me why this is necessarily a Basque feature . By te way the loss of the initial Latin f happens in other languages like Romanian. I guess that there were Basques there too...
The closest sound to v is f. In fact Navarre is spelled Nafarroa in Basque.
The Basque substratum in Spanish is just a myth and as long as linguistics find new evidences it becames a more fragile theory. For example it was consensus among scholars that the first manuscripts writen in Castilian are Glosas Emilanenses and that there were a few Basque words writen as side notes was taken as a evidence of the Basque substratum. Well, nowadays modern theories explain that those Glosas Emilianenses were not even Castilian but Navarro-Aragonese. The oldest Castilian manuscripts are Cartularios de Valpuesta (802) and there are zero Basque words on it. You can always find other explainations to the features Spanish has , not just that mysterious Basque substratum. A good example is the case of ser/estar distinction, which can also be found in Italian: sto bene, sto leggendo, sono un ragazzo, etc...
The closest sound to v is f. In fact Navarre is spelled Nafarroa in Basque.
The Basque substratum in Spanish is just a myth and as long as linguistics find new evidences it becames a more fragile theory. For example it was consensus among scholars that the first manuscripts writen in Castilian are Glosas Emilanenses and that there were a few Basque words writen as side notes was taken as a evidence of the Basque substratum. Well, nowadays modern theories explain that those Glosas Emilianenses were not even Castilian but Navarro-Aragonese. The oldest Castilian manuscripts are Cartularios de Valpuesta (802) and there are zero Basque words on it. You can always find other explainations to the features Spanish has , not just that mysterious Basque substratum. A good example is the case of ser/estar distinction, which can also be found in Italian: sto bene, sto leggendo, sono un ragazzo, etc...
<<By te way the loss of the initial Latin f happens in other languages like Romanian. I guess that there were Basques there too...
>>
But with Romanian it's not because of Basque. With Spanish it is.
You cannot make conclusions based on your reasoning like this. This is what leads you into error.
You cannot desire a particular agenda (like wanting Spanish to be Italian for example), then work things to try and support that claim.
You have the cart before the horse, so to speak.
You must examine all the information, then draw conclusions from that and accept whatever the outcome may be.
I'm sorry, but Spanish is not Italian.
>>
But with Romanian it's not because of Basque. With Spanish it is.
You cannot make conclusions based on your reasoning like this. This is what leads you into error.
You cannot desire a particular agenda (like wanting Spanish to be Italian for example), then work things to try and support that claim.
You have the cart before the horse, so to speak.
You must examine all the information, then draw conclusions from that and accept whatever the outcome may be.
I'm sorry, but Spanish is not Italian.
<<Nor Spanish is Basque.>>
agreed.
Spanish has way more in common with Italian than it does with Basque to be sure!
agreed.
Spanish has way more in common with Italian than it does with Basque to be sure!
If Spanish has more things in common with Italian it's more reasonable to say that ser/estar distinction is related to the Italian essere/stare counterpart rather than to Basque.
<<If Spanish has more things in common with Italian it's more reasonable to say that ser/estar distinction is related to the Italian essere/stare counterpart rather than to Basque. >>
Not necessarily.
See, there you are doing that reasoning thing again.
just because a = b, and c = d does not necessarily mean that p = q
you must evaluate each one individually and if it's true in ALL situations, then you can say that.
Spanish because of origin shares with Italian. But Spanish because of proximity and substratum shares with Basque. It's some of each. How much I don't think anyone really knows, but you can't just say: "Spanish is in common with Italian. See? Two verbs for 'be'." It's not that simple.
Someone hearing that will only grasp that aspect, take it further, and run with it. The next person will take it further still and pass that on until in the end, you have ridiculous claims being made that are totally unfounded and unscientific. Kinda like how rumors spread. It happens all the time...
Not necessarily.
See, there you are doing that reasoning thing again.
just because a = b, and c = d does not necessarily mean that p = q
you must evaluate each one individually and if it's true in ALL situations, then you can say that.
Spanish because of origin shares with Italian. But Spanish because of proximity and substratum shares with Basque. It's some of each. How much I don't think anyone really knows, but you can't just say: "Spanish is in common with Italian. See? Two verbs for 'be'." It's not that simple.
Someone hearing that will only grasp that aspect, take it further, and run with it. The next person will take it further still and pass that on until in the end, you have ridiculous claims being made that are totally unfounded and unscientific. Kinda like how rumors spread. It happens all the time...
What is totally unscientific is that Basque substratum which is not even really a substratum of Spanish (Celtic is) to explain features of Spanish which have a more logic explaination. At least the common origin of Italian and Spanish is well proved. They both have two verbs for to be which are similar: essere-ser and stare-estar. Also they both are used to make the same distinction: permanent characteristics and mutable ones. The only difference is that in some cases what Spanish considers changeable is viewed as permanent in Italian, for example "Burgos está en el norte de España". Here Spanish uses estar whereas Italian uses the verb essere. I don't know if the ser/estar patterns of usage in Basque are just the same as in Spanish, but only because Basque makes that distinction and Spanish does too does not demonstrate that Spanish inherited that feature from Basque. Genetically Spanish and Italian are so close that those features which are similiar in both them are dued to the same origin, it's not logical to say that it's because of certain substratum of Spanish which coincidentally shares commont points with Italian like two verbs for to be to distinguish mutable vs non mutable characteristics.
Basque for 'to be' is two words:
1). izan
2). egon
'izan' is used for established facts and states of permanence.
'egon' is used for temporary states of being and location, such as "I am in the house", like Spanish estar.
Use of multiple verbs for 'be' is not unique to either Spanish, Italian, or Basque (Euskara). It is also found in languages such as Old English (beon -be, wesan-be, dwell, buan-stay, be); Korean (ida -to be [state], issda- to be [location]).
So the formation of dual verbs in Spanish and Italian, from verbs originally meaning 'be' and 'stand' is nothing special. Nor is it an indication of unique development in Spanish.
1). izan
2). egon
'izan' is used for established facts and states of permanence.
'egon' is used for temporary states of being and location, such as "I am in the house", like Spanish estar.
Use of multiple verbs for 'be' is not unique to either Spanish, Italian, or Basque (Euskara). It is also found in languages such as Old English (beon -be, wesan-be, dwell, buan-stay, be); Korean (ida -to be [state], issda- to be [location]).
So the formation of dual verbs in Spanish and Italian, from verbs originally meaning 'be' and 'stand' is nothing special. Nor is it an indication of unique development in Spanish.