Trino Meseguer Agullo

No seas susceptible, hombre. Cuando en español se dice “muchacho” no es condescendencia. Es igual a cuando, p. ej. en francés se dice:” Mais oui, mon gars”. Puedes tener 25 años o tus 77 y se te puede seguir tratando  de “muchacho”.

Ya sabía tu edad (yo tengo 76) porque tú me la dijiste o nos la habías dicho, que ahora no me acuerdo.

Y también sabemos todos que no crees en “los traductores” de ibérico. Nos lo has dicho por activa y por pasiva. No seré yo quien me ofenda. Y no me ofendo porque yo sí creo que se puede “traducir”. Y, además, eres un miembro de este foro, con tus opiniones que sabes defender y eso basta para mi.

Angusj Huck

As a demonstrative, we find it in phrases like:

seldar ban ari eukiar gatu “this tomb is containing us” (?)

ban gudur iradier “(he has) depicted these battles” (?)

As a noun, it is found in bipartite anthroponyms, and with the partitive suffix, as banir “things” (i.e., grave goods).

Also banda and taban “big thing” (ban + augmentative -ta).

In Basque, we find the following:

(B-a-m-tx, Gc) bana “distinct”

(B) napar-ban “smallpox pimple”

(B) or-ban, (BN, Z) or-bain “mark on the body” (*orr- “body” + *ban “pimple”)

lu-ban “enclosure” <*lur-ban “particular land”

The final /n/ is firmly fortis throughout the reflexes.

The primary meaning seems to be “pimple”, at least in Basque. A pimple is something specific and distinct.

Compare the use in Turkish of tane “grain, berry”:

Bir sise portakal suyu istiyorum. Bir tane istiyorum. Büyük bir tane istiyorum “I want a bottle of orange juice. I want one. I want a big one.”

In Pelasgian, pam and pan may have meant “bubble”, hence their use in hydronyms. Similarly, British Vasconic wan.

Victor Montañes Borràs

Sobre “ban” creo que todos más o menos coincidimos. Quien sabe si “ban” por evolución dio “one” o “un”, tal com dicen los estudiosos anglosajones, podria evolucionar a “wan” y de aquí a “one” y “un”.

Para mi su significado no es “uno” sino “parte”. Una parte, un lado, una manera, y que ha evolucionado a nuestra lengua en “banda”, es decir, parte, facción, franja, lista, etc. Podriamos decir que es una de las partes de un todo.

Siempre adopta posiciónes complementarias, como la de un articulo, demostrativo o adjetivo. Puede, como muchos adjetivos, adquirir naturaleza de nombre, cuando el conjunto del que forma parte ya queda claro: (si hablamos de un grupo) una parte dice que si, otra que no.

No sé si habeis leido lo del verbo ibero “batir” y variantes, pero creo que vale la pena discutir sobre ello.

Patxi Alaña

Sobre la “e” como fonema pluralizante habló hace años Bittor Kapanaga. En su opinión este resto se observa hoy día en algun verbo:

zara (eres)  <-> zarie (sois). En batua: zarete (que conserva la e final). Bittor propuso zare

También hizo la misma propuesta para el resto de los plurales hace 30 años: que en batua deberían ser: dire en lugar de dira (son) y gare en lugar de gara (somos)

Angusj Huck

I have mentioned that ban is to be found in Basque (B) or-ban, (BN, Z) or-bain “mark on the body” and have suggested that the first part of this compound is an old word for “body” predating gorputz. This may be the or- that is found in the Iberian anthroponymic compound element, ordin, orden, ordun (the latter variant preponderating towards the west). If so, this may be analysed as “having a body”, i.e. “person”.

I suspect that Iberian badi is the numeral “one”. In Basque, this has been reduced to bat. badi may be present in the toponym, Baziege <*badi-egi “place of the single house”.

badir, as used on rolls of donors of grave goods, may have the same meaning as banir, i.e. “things”. On the Palamos lead foil, badir is placed after the name of the donor, and may refer to the grave goods donated. -ir is the partitive suffix. On the much older Alcoy lead foil, it appears as -irg (similar to Basque -(r)ik). On the later texts, the final consonant has been elided.

I hope that makes sense.

Trino meseguer agullo

I confess that I have some difficulties trying to make sense of what you say the reason being that some of the iberian lexemes you bring about do not match exactly with those I imaging you mean. Should you give us some references on them, e.g. Untermann MLH´s, might help us to assess them.

It might also be that distinct readings on those lexemes may be involved for that reason which is something we may discuss to settle down.

There is another point yet. If I am to answer back your arguments I will proceed as I normally do by showing up my articles on the targetted items. Those articles are made up in spanish and you can find spanish sort of references all along the line. Would you be able to follow it all?

Lastly I will not cover any p.i.e. or i.e. subject matters as those are not in my field of knowledge but I will certainly follow them. However my point of view is that if we dig up through their means to expose some intimacy of the iberian language may be a lost of time and effort.