Review: Proto-Basque Reconstruction with Evidence for the Proto-Indo-European-Euskarian Hypothesis
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 20. 04. 2024
- Welcome to today's video. đ„
This one took me a long time to prepare, and I'm afraid it might be a bit rough around the edges. It was definitely a hard subject to tackle. I also recorded it in the dark so Iâm sorry if the video is a little fuzzy (I have a little ring light for recording but for whatever reason, didnât use it).
The subject of today's video is Juliette Blevins' book, "Advances in Proto-Basque Reconstruction with Evidence for the Proto-Indo-European-Euskarian Hypothesis." đ This book holds significant importance in the field of linguistics, particularly in exploring the relationship between Proto-Basque and Proto-Indo-European (The first of its kind in that regard).
Personally, I've been drawn to Blevins' work due to her previous contributions to Austronesian languages and phonology, which piqued my interest in her exploration of Proto-Basque.
Blevins proposes a hypothesis suggesting a connection between Proto-Basque and Proto-Indo-European, challenging conventional views in linguistics (most scholars consider Basque an isolate). This theory has sparked intense debate and scrutiny within the linguistic community, with some questioning its methodological soundness and potential influence from loanwords or contact languages.
Despite the controversy, Blevins' work has undeniably advanced our understanding of Proto-Basque reconstruction. Her meticulous research and comprehensive analysis provide valuable insights into the linguistic history of the Basque language.
However, it's essential to maintain a critical perspective on Blevins' proposed Proto-Indo-European-Euskarian hypothesis. While her contributions to Proto-Basque reconstruction are commendable, the validity of her hypothesis remains a topic of ongoing discussion and scrutiny within the field.
In this video, we'll look into the key aspects of Blevins' work, exploring both its significance and its limitations. Join me as we navigate through the complex world of linguistic hypotheses and uncover the truths hidden within ancient languages. đ
This video is dedicated to Larry Trask, a fine Basque linguist and historian.
đ Selected sources (others will be in the video). In approximate order that they appear
â Blevins, J. (2018). Advances in Proto-Basque Reconstruction with Evidence for the Proto-Indo-European-Euskarian Hypothesis. London & New York: Routledge.
Blevins, J. (2020a). Derivational patterns in Proto-Basque word structure. In L. KörtvĂ©lyessy & P. Ć tekauer (Eds.), Complex words: Advances in Morphology (pp. 222-243). Cambridge University Press.
Blevins, J., & Sproat, R. (2021). Statistical evidence for the Proto-Indo-European-Euskarian Hypothesis: A word-list approach integrating phonotactics. Diachronica.
Blevins, J. (2001). Nhanda: An Aboriginal Language of Western Australia. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications, 30, i-170
Blevins, J. 2007a. A long lost sister of Proto-Austronesian? Proto-Ongan, Mother of Jarawa and Onge of the Andaman Islands. Oceanic Linguistics 46: 154-98
Blevins, J. (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
â Bakker, P. (2020). Distant genetic relations: is Basque related to Indo-European? Fontes Linguae Vasconum, (130), 563-592.
Michelena, L. (1995). The ancient Basque consonants. In J. I. Hualde, J. A. Lakarra, & R. L. Trask (Eds.), Towards a History of the Basque Language (pp. 101-). [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 131].
â Trask, R. L. (1997). The History of Basque (1st ed.). Routledge.
â Hualde, J. I. (2021). On the comparative method, internal reconstruction, and other analytical tools for the reconstruction of the evolution of the Basque language: An assessment. Anuario Del Seminario De FilologĂa Vasca "Julio De Urquijo",.
Gorrochategui, JoaquĂn. 2020b. Fontes Linguae Vasconum: orĂgenes y documentos para una Historia del Euskara. In Ekaitz Santazilia, Dorota Krajewska, Eneko Zuloaga & Borja Ariztimuño (eds.), Fontes Linguae Vasconum 50 urte, 295-313. Iruña/Pamplona: Nafarroako Gobernua/Gobierno de Navarra.
Gorrochategui, JoaquĂn & Joseba A. Lakarra. 2013. Why Basque cannot be, unfortunately, an Indo-European language. Journal of Indo-European Studies.
Blasco Ferrer, E. (2016). Protovascuence y Paleosardo: Reconstrucción y Comparación [Proto-Basque and Paleosardinian: Reconstruction and Comparison]. Lıburna, 9, 73-88
MartĂnez Areta, M. (2013). Basque and Proto-Basque. Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang Verlag.
Hualde, J. I., Lakarra, J. A., & Trask, R. L. (Eds.). (1995). Towards a History of the Basque Language. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rix, H., KĂŒmmel, M., Zehnder, T., Lipp, R., & Schirmer, B. (2001). Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Rix, H., KĂŒmmel, M., Zehnder, T., Lipp, R., & Schirmer, B. (2014). Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben (3rd ed.).
Fortson IV, B. W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell. - ZĂĄbava
17:54 I wanted to say most of the Iroquoian languages, but their whole thing is not having any labial sounds at all, sooooo they donât have [b] either. Cherokee does have [m], but only in like one native word and its derivations (ama, meaning âwaterâ)
I'm so glad that you did this one, and in so much detail too!
As far as the /m/ being nonexistent, the only example I can think of is Rotokas, often said to hold the record for minimal phonological inventory, a language of the North Bougainville family, one of the two language families on the island of Bougainville, an island of about 50 km x 200 km east of New Britain and New Ireland going east from New Guinea, at the beginning of the Solomon Islands archipelago but part of Papua New Guinea. I think I did see some other examples of languages missing /m/ on WALS, but I forget what they were.
It seems to me that it would not at all be odd for a language to have [m] as an allophone of [b], and I think that may be what was going on in Basque. And if you look at the article about Rotokas, some dialects realize /b/ as [m].
By way of comparison, consider Finnish: several hundred years ago, /d/ only appeared as a gradation of /t/ (and so only intervocalically), and /b/ and /g/ didn't exist at all. But what's *really* going on is the /p/, /t/, and /k/ were allowed the entire space of phonetic realizations from unvoiced to voiced: [b] and [p] were simply allophones, and that's true for the speech of some Finns to this day. Another example may be the [d]~[l] allophony that it seems may have existed in pre-Greek languages of the Aegean (Odysseus=Olysseus=Ulysses, dabrus=labrus so dabyrinthos=labyrinthos). I observed this [d]~[l] allophony in a Kalaallisut (Greenlandic) video recently as well.
These languages come into contact with a language that *doesn't* have this allophony (in all three cases an IE language), and in contact and in trade the speakers of the IE language put a premium on "which way" you pronounce your phoneme. To us, it would feel like someone was requiring us to pronounce "clock" with a bright /l/ or with a dark /l/; it would seem weird and arbitrary at first, but after a century, you know what you have to do.
The most substantial lacuna in Blevins' thesis is for me, as it seems to be for you, the absence of an accounting for any of the many very substantial typological differences between Basque and (Proto-)Indo-European. Of course, languages' typologies change due to internal and external pressures, reanalysis etc., and we can see just how different e.g. English and Armenian or Russian and Hindi are today. But the *hika* register, the register for allocutive forms you mentioned in the video, is omnipresent in the paradigm for the auxiliary *izan* that's used with all verbs in Basque, multiplying its number of verb forms by a factor of about 10 and landing them in the thousands at least, and not in an entirely straightforward manner that could IMO have occurred by means of a recent innovation. *hika* is under threat of extinction, especially the female register, which also adds somewhere between a cent and a dollar to the "is ancient" basket.
In scrutinizing the Hand of Irulegi, we ascertain that although Basque was substantially different two thousand years ago, in some ways it was very similar (zorioneku~zorioneko "auspices (i.e., of good birds)" > "good fortune; congratulations"; eraukon~zeraukon (causative verb)); and the ways in which it was different don't seem to bring it any closer to alignment with IE. (There's nothing indicating that Trask was wrong in postulating the absence of the all-purpose definite article -a, for example; that's not to say that definite articles are a property of IE, but just this is a lateral move.)
As far as your remark regarding the seeming absence of an ancient verb for "to speak" (or "to say"), it seems the problem with entering the ancient verb in the dictionary is that seems to consist of almost entirely raw inflections with a zero root. It's usually entered into lexica as *-io-** because of this, choosing the two vowels that tend to show up in sequence in its inflected forms. Interestingly, there is a *Bizkaiako euskalkiko* (Biscayan dialectal) form *-iño-, and Esteban de Garibay in the XVIth century wrote *euskera* "Basque" as *enusquera*, so it seems that the verb for "to speak" actually had either an /n/ or an /ñ/ in it, which was eventually lost. See EDB (Etymological Dictionary of Basque, Trask), pp. 186, 226.
With the /n/ lost, this verb was easily conflated with *yet another* verb that seems to have an approximately zero root and consist almost entirely of inflections, for "to give." This latter verb has been entirely lost in modern Basque, replaced with *eman*+auxiliary, where "to say" has been almost entirely replaced with *esan*+auxiliary (*erran* *euskalki batzuetan* (in some Basque dialects)).
So, what did Juliette Blevins discover? It's possible that she has found the results of over a millennium of contact between Basque and pre-Celtic Indo-European speakers! If this is so, this would be *huge*, and it would be a huge step forward in our very scanty understanding of the languages of Europe in the Bronze Age. Alternately, it could be as in your map that Basque has two (or even three!) layers, i.e., a superstrate from the steppe influencing a language from the sea, and the steppe layer is related to Indo-European.
I believe that *some* of her sound changes will come to bear out over time, whereas others will be shown to be exceedingly unlikely. Which ones, I can't say.
The speculation by Mitxelena is based on very few Aquitanian inscriptions, none of them having "m" and one being "senbe" (allegedly instead of "seme" = "son"). However closely related ancient Iberian clearly has "m" all over the place.
There are some words like "(h)amar" = 10 clearly having an Iberian form "abar" =10 (and a fossil expression "eta abar" = "etcetera" in modern Basque). So it's likely that Mitxelena's absolutism re. b > m has some justification but IMO not to the absolute rule he imagined. Interestingly there's another fossil numeral word "(h)amaika" = 11, which is again best understood via Iberian, where it was "abar-ke-ban", implying that in ancient times the copulative conjunction ("and") was not modern "eta" (or its shortening "ta"), clearly derived from Latin "et" but almost certainly "ka" ("ke" in Iberian), and, crucially, this "fossil" retains the modern Basque "(h)amar" (10) element and not the Iberian variant "abar".
Similarly Mitxelena argued for a regular rule k>h but we know from ancient inscriptions that the opposite (h>k) also happened. The key one here is a votive slab placed at the central Pyrenees in Roman times that reads "Aherbelste Deo" (i.e. to the god Aherbelste) and we know that the modern Basque form is Akerbeltz (aker = billy goat, beltz = black, a common manifestation of Goddess Mari in Basque mythology). In this case it is very clear that exactly the opposite to what Mitxelena proposed did happen: Aherbelste became Akerbeltz, /h/ became /k/.
A problem with Mitxelena's hegemonic theories is that he's too rigid and does not allow for realistic diversity in evolution within a complex dialect continuum, which was almost totally illiterate until the Protestant reformation (which also affected Basques for a while) and unregulated until the mid-20th century.
@danielbriggs991 great comment, I always appreciate your input. I agree with your final conculsion about the contact between Basque and pre-Celtic indo-european. A few weeks back you mentioned Colarusso's Pontic... well, fortunately/unfortunately it's caught my eye.... expect a video on that hypothesis in the coming weeks!
@@LearnHittite Basque or proto-Basque rather had contact with proto-Celtic at the Rhine region and later with invading Celts at Languedoc-Catalonia (and later upstream the Ebro river, etc., all the way to Gallaecia). I'm intrigued by whatever connections you may make (my non-existent knowledge of Celtic doesn't allow me to do that myself) but I expect rather Basque-like influences in Celtic as substrate or (Bell Beaker) adstrate than the opposite, at least that's apparent in mythology.
The general outlook of ancient Basque and Iberian relations with Celts was anyhow one of general hostility. I even think that the word Celt (from Greek "keltos", surely adopted by Massilians first) is Basque-derived and derisive, as Basque words in kel- all have negative meanings with the closest one "keldo" meaning "vagabond". The native endonym for the Celts would be rather Gael (Gallus for their Latin brethren, Galati for the Greeks of the Balcans and Asia Minor). These wars began with the Urnfields culture expansion (Celto-Italics, both) and were still active when Caesar invaded Gaul ostensibly to prevent the Helvetian Celts migration-invasion against Aquitaine.
I think it's worth noting that Vasconists are actually quite against this and think her reconstruction is quite flawed. See the following statement from Borja Ariztimuño-Lopez, Eneko Zuloaga & Dorota Krajewska (University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU)
" We show that Blevinsâs proposal cannot be accepted due to structural flaws in Basque data (we leave the Proto-Indo-European part for relevant experts).
The hypothesis suffers from the same problems which earlier attempts of linking Basque to other languages did. The following is a sample of the difficulties:
a) Loan words are mistaken for native lexicon. For example, Blevins derives apeu, apego âdecoyâ from *ha-phego, but it comes from Romance (French appeau, Gascon apĂšu).
b) Blevins uses localized forms and relatively modern variants. For example, she states that oixan âforestâ < *oiso- âferocious, wildâ + -an locative; oixan is actually a secondary variant of oihan.
c) Blevins employs formations transparent within Basque (often modern and documented only once) as if they were old: e.g. hegatsu âwingedâ < *phega-so (claiming it to be related to pegasus). Hegatsu is transparent (< hego âwingâ and the suffix -tsu â-y [abundantial]â), and its first and only attestation is in Larramendiâs dictionary in 1745. Moreover, the old form (found in toponyms) of the suffix -tsu is -zu.
d) Modern neologisms are used as material for reconstruction: e.g. hirikoe âtriglyphâ < *thiri-khoi; actually from *hir(u)-ikoe (âthree-lineâ), attested first and only in Larramendi (1745) (Urgell 2000).
e) Problems with morphology, such as arbitrary or erroneous segmentations. Blevins segments verbs such as eduki âhaveâ as *e-duki, without distinguishing the morpheme -ki (cf. edeki âremoveâ, ebaki âcutâ). Another example is atson âodour, aromaâ reconstructed as *ha-son, which clearly comes from *(h)ats-on âgood smellâ.
In conclusion, because of these and other methodological problems the sound correspondences proposed by Blevins are often wrong, and thus cannot prove the genetic link. "
Proto-Finnic: *puhu- = to speak
Proto-Finnic: *laula- = to sing, a song
If you must talk...
Puhku Bukille đ Tell it to the marines...
Tra-lau-la-lira-la
#uraliconomatopoieettinen
as for the reconciling of Indo-European and Basque Grammar, the development of the feminine gender being relatively late in the process of PIE's core evolution could mean grammatical gender in general was a recently innovated grammatical feature. It is also possible that the case systems of both languages came from an a very analytical or isolating proto language that eventually made different particles into ingrained suffixes in different grammatical situations, and they by separately innovating case, and there by Nom/Acc and Erg/Abs systems.
I agree that I don't find the arguments about syntax and morphology convincing die to the time depth and the fact that we know IE languages went through big syntax changes.
I don't know nearly enough about Basque or about early Indo-European.
But if they are related, I suspect many of the other unknown languages of Europe should also be related to one or both of these (Minoan, the rest of the pre-Greek substrate, the proposed pre-Germanic substrate, possibly even Etruscan, possibly Iberian). I think Blevins's model would require at least some of the long-range comparisons that Trask dismissed.
All European languages (save Uralic and Turkic) and also many Asian ones were connected at the craddle of Neolithic in West Asia. That doesn't mean that they have a common ancestor (the cultural diversity of the region was quite impressive) but that they were at least in a very intensive sprachbund, influencing each other and getting to share words and ideas.
The precursor of Etruscan (proto-Tyrsenian) was surely there (East of Göbekli Tepe), proto-Vasconic was west of it, probably the precursor of proto-Indoeuropean was north of it, etc.
I beg to differ. The bronze age was practically the first time when people started such vast migrations. There's not historical or genetic evidence to support Pre-PIE migrations to the Aegean and Italy, let alone linguistic evidence. I'm rather of the opinion that Etruscan and Minoan languages are related to each other, and they came from the language(s) of Neolithic Anatolians. No connections to Pre-PIE.
@@gwynbleidd_doethbleidd - The precursors of Indoeuropeans (within "Iran Neolithic genetic" type also "Caucaso-Baloch" or similar labels) definitely migrated from South of the Caucasus to the North of it (from historical Armenia probably all the way to the lower Volga basin) and admixed at around 50-50 with the previously established Uralics of "EHG" genetics (WHG or Paleoeuropean + Siberian Uralic admixture in themselves).
Italy and Greece and other areas are far into the future at this stage, they had not yet domesticated horses even. However since c. 6000 or 6500 years ago, these already fully formed Indoeuropeans migrated from that Volga and North Caucasus country in four main directions: (1) back to the south (Anatolian branch), (2) to Altai (Tocharian branch), (3) to Romania and nearby areas (probably Tracho-Dacians, of which Albanian may be the sole live descendant) and... (4) to Central Europe and nearby Baltic areas, producing all the rest, broader West Indoeuropean, except Indo-Iranic, which was the "stay-behind" group that would later invade (5) Southern Asia (Iran-Kurdistan included).
Once we have the Western Indoeuropean branch (Corded Ware culture) in Central-North Europe, there was a pushback of some Vasconics from the West (specifically Aquitaine region, definitely proto-Basque in genetics already) in the form of Bell Beaker culture (sneaky West Vasconic archery vs blunt Indoeuropean warhammers essentially, also trade, lots of trade) and the Western IEs were pacified for a thousand years or so. But they had a spinoff in the Middle Danube (Vucedol culture) which managed to reach Greece (IMO by the sea from Montenegro area) in the Early Bronze Age (producing the Greeks) and later by land in the late Bronze Age to Macedon and Asia Minor (Macedonio-Phrygians) and eventually (Iron Age already) to Armenia.
@LuisAldamiz well, your first mistake is in the assumption of the EHG being Proto-Uralic speakers and the CHG being PIE speakers. With respect to the first problem, the EHG didn't (most likely) speak an ancestral Uralic language; if you look at the genetic components of today's Uralic speakers, you see 1) not all of them have EHG ancestry 2) each and every one of them has Nganasan-like ancestry. The EHG doesn't share this Nganasan-like component, and the Nganasan have been living isolated for centuries. The inference we get from that is that ancient Uralic speakers were distinct from the EHG, CHG and WSH.
Regarding the second problem, you can actually think that to be the case. We haven't found any evidence to challenge that idea. But you can also very well think the EHG were PIE speakers. Nothing opposes that idea, either. We can't confidently pinpoint ancient IE speakers prior to the WSH.
@@gwynbleidd_doethbleidd - Not proto-Uralic, maybe proto-Finno-Ugric? Uralic is older and spread from East Asia through Siberia since the Last Glacial Maximum (tracked genetically via Y-DNA N1 and mtDNA C, as well as Siberian/East Asian autosomal DNA). They were the first Western Eurasians with pottery (which they brought from China, where it's a very old pre-Neolithic development) and they definitely admixed with Paleoeuropeans to form the EHG population (and to genetically influence the SHG one to lesser extent). The genetic trail is all over the place (most notably mtDNA C in archaeogenetics and Y-DNA N1 in modern genetics) and also in terms of Uralic/Siberian genetics and even phenotype (partial epicanthic fold, notably in Northern/Eastern Europeans often, greater frequency of straight hair, etc.) among Indoeuropeans.
So I don't think we are in fundamental disagreement, as I understand that the Nganassan represent rather a residue of the earliest Uralic expansion in Siberia and not so much the Euro-admixed EHG West Uralic (Finnnic or Finno-Ugric) more recent development (which also had its phases of autonomous evolution of course).
Blevins must be correct re. "m" (Mitxelena has many critics, not only for that reason). My logic is that the closest known relative of Basque or Vasco-Aquitanian was ancient Iberian, of which we know something (for example the numerals, which are very similar to Basque ones, studied by Orduña and Ferrer i Jan this century), including a very clear idea of the phonology (extremely similar to modern Basque), especially from the Ibero-Jonian texts (Iberian had its own semi-syllabary but sometimes it was written, quite conveniently for us, in Greek script). From these it's clear that "m" was present, that k/g and d/t were discernible pairs (in Iberian script they're not differentiated) but that "p" did not exist (all instances of b/p are written with beta, i.e. "b"). Iberian also had two sybillants (contradicting Blevins ideas probably) but I suspect that they are interpreted wrongly by mainline Iberian transliterations (which consider "sŽ" = /s/ and "s" = Basque "z" or something similar, IMO it's the opposite, else it makes no sense: "sabal basterrek" or "zabal bazterrek"?, IMO the latter is correct and almost identical to modern Basque "zabal bazterrak" = "the wide coasts/riversides/edges"). Much more difficult is to find representation of Basque complex sybillants (ts, tz and tx = English/Spanish "ch"), I do suspect that "rs" may try to represent them but unsure.
Genetically ancient Iberians were indistinct from modern Basques and they represent a late Chalcolithic (Bell Beaker) or early Bronze Age expansion of Basque-like populations to East Iberia (previously the genetics were rather Sardinian-like, there was a population replacement in that period). This seems to imply that "proto-Basque" would be the same as "proto-Vasco-Iberian" and may have an antiquity of c. 2800 to 1800 BCE. For contrast proto-Vasconic, a more distant common ancestor necessary to understand the massive Vasconic substrate legacy in most of Europe, should be from c. 9000 BCE (in Southern Anatolia). It can only be proto-Vasconic the one to be connected to proto-Indoeuropean (or rather to the precursor of proto-Indoeuropean maybe located in historical Armenia in the early Neolithic). My take is that the affinity is rather sprachbund than actual comon ascent but I concur that the affinity exists (my own mass lexical analysis produced 15% likely cognates, above the noise threshold of c. 10% but not overwhelmingly massive.
Regarding the existence of /m/ in PB:
1- The examples given by Blevins (malko and malkar) are *very* clearly not of ancient origin, in part because the cluster /lk/ became /lg/ in medieval Basque (Trask, 2008, p.26), and also because there are already other words with much more native appearance for these meanings, namely: negar âtearâ and labar âcliffâ/aldats âslopeâ. âMalkoâ and âmalkarâ are very clearly of expressive origin, as are almost all other words with /m/ that are neither borrowings nor descend from PB terms with *b or *nb instead, e.g. madari âpearâ (from older âudareâ) or karramarro âcrabâ (obviously an expressive reduplication).
2- There *is* actually evidence for the borrowing of /m/ as /n/ in very early loanwords from Celtic, the main and least controversial example would be *rÄmu- âoarââ*arranuâarraun (modern Basque, also âoar).
3- Finally, it is worthy of mention to say that âmâ is conspicuously missing from any attested Aquitanian names (except when followed by âbâ, although sometimes the âbâ was also dropped, which is an attestation of the *nbâm sound change that introduced /m/ into Basque) and in the inscription of the hand of Irulegi.
All in all, if PB did have *m (which I personally find unlikely) it was a very, very marginal phoneme.
Great post đ
On the negative side, for what I understand of Blevins' line of thought, I feel that her idea of Basque "z" being originally s+consonant (sth for example) doesn't sound right, especially with Iberian also having two sybillants. Similarly her inclusion of ph in the proto-Basque phonetics seems fishy: Basque is very allergic to the sound /f/ and even /p/ (better accepted) seems a "recent" incorporation from Latin and Romance (again ancient Iberian acts as reference: with "b" but no "p" anywhere where it can be discerned, i.e. in the Ibero-Jonian texts).
I concur that her choice favoring "h" is very debatable. It is surely true that hk has happened ("Aherbelste Deo" = "to the god Akerbeltz", i.e. the black he-goat, a common "totem" or manifestation of the supreme Goddess Mari in Basque mythology) and not necessarily always in the k>h direction that Mitxelena proposed, but in any case many modern (always northerner) "h" may well be, as you correctly infer, at least sometimes, recent innovations. It's possible anyhow that northern and southern Aquitanian had differences in this regard and that the southern dialects were closer to Iberian in pronunciation, lacking any "h" even in Antiquity (notice that southern Basques were probably assimilated into Aquitanianness after Celtic invasions disrupted other continuities rather than being part of it all the time since Neolithic arrival).
To my amateur (but serious) eyes, after having done my mass-lexical comparison homework many years ago (what follows is from 2011), a minimal list of Basque-PIE cognates can be as follows:
The clear cognates are (Basque-PIE):
(2) zu - *tĂșh [you - sing.]
(4) gu - *wéy [we]
(5) zu(ek) - *yƫ [you - pl.] [notice that 2 and 5 are messed up in both Basque and IE]
(24) hiru - *tréyes (??) [three]
(49) suge - *hâengwi [snake]
(65) hezur - *hâost-, *kost- [bone]
(76) aho - *hâohâs- [mouth]
(77) hortz - *hâdĂłnts [tooth]
(86) heste - *ehâter- [gut]
(103) jaki(-n) - *Ç”nehâ-[to know]
(149) izar - *hâstážr [star]
(168) hauts - *hâĂ©s-no-, *hâĂ©s-i- [ash]
(170) bide - *pent- [way, road]
(178) egu, egun - *hâeÇ”h- [day]
(180) bero - *gÊ·Ê°er- [warm]
(184) zahar - *senhâĂł- [old]
(202) -n - (hâ?)en [in, on]
(207) izen - *hânážhâmnÌ„ [name]
I must add here one very strong cognate (probably not in the Swadesh list, credit to Roslyn Frank, the last surviving disciple of Trask):
· hartz - *hâĆÌ„táž±os [bear]
A quite intriguing "oblique cognate" is:
(92) edan (to drink) - (93) *hâed- (to eat)
Less clear "cognates" (?) that I felt worth mentioning would be these:
(28) luze - *dluhâgÊ°Ăłs [long]. This I have generally suspected as a loanword from some IE language to Basque, but the main reason for this suspicion is that it begins like the usual IE words for long (long, largo, etc.) with an L-. There's nothing else, however the connection seems more real when you go to PIE.
(33) (labur), motz - *mreǔʰĂș- [short]
(50) har - *wrmi [worm]
(57) erro - *wrĂ©hâds [root]
(62) azal - *pel- [skin]
(68) adar - *keg-, *áž±er- [horn]
(71) ile - *pulhâ- [hair] [this one seems to be related to 62, maybe *Vl(e) meant once skin and hair alike (or as conceptually highly related words) - we can still discern an open vowel (a/e) in 62 and a closed one (i/u) in 71]
(72) buru - *gÊ°ebÊ°elo- [head] [where *gÊ°eb- corresponds with the other proposed root *kaput, and -bÊ°elo- would correspond with Basque buru]
(78) mihi - *dn̄ǔʰwĂ©hâs [tongue] [probably not but still I do see some similitude]
(104) gogo(tu) - *tong- [to think] [here the Basque list reads pentsatu but this is not any genuine Basque word: gogo as noun means psyche, mind, soul, desire, and gogotu means to wish but also any other mental function, however it's been partly replaced by Spanish loan pentsatu for rationalist uses mostly]
(172) gorri - *hârewdÊ°Ăłs [red] [I have before mentioned the importance of the sound R in West Eurasia to describe the color red: it's not universal but it's much more common than in East Eurasia or anywhere else I could check]
(179) urte - *yeHr-, *wet- [year]. Check also (194) PIE *wed [wet]. In Basque urte is clearly related to the water (ur) cycle and watery (not wet but close enough) would be urti.
(180) lehor - *ters- [dry]
In a later mass lexical comparison I counted 15% likely cognates but this was a smaller count than the 25% plausible cognates I got with Nubian languages (what initially surprised me a lot). I speculate that this is because the likely precursor of PIE existed in Neolithic NE Turkey (historical Armenia) while proto-Vasconic was in South Central Turkey, not far away (both close to the culture of the famous Göbekli Tepe cultural crossroads, the Nevali-Ăorian). To the East of these (and south of the precursors of PIE, per my interpretation) would be the proto-Tyrsenians, but these two did not belong to the PPNA/B "super-culture", while proto-Vasconic and maybe proto-Nubian (if it was the main language of Levant Neolithic, as I suspect) were part of it instead.
Wow, thanks for your really deep and insightful comments. I'll give them a thorough read when I get home later but you have shared some interesting points! Have a great day đ
@@LearnHittite - Thanks to you for discussing this rather obscure, yet very intriguing matter. Cheers.
Very interesting, though some possible cognates might be hiding, in other "direction". For example, in "gorri" = red (172), i'd be inclined to connect it with the welsh "goch" (red), latin "coccinus/coccum" (as in cochineal, where "cochi" stands for red), and greek "kokkos/kĂłkkinos" (scarlet berry / red tint), maybe a surviving hunter-gatherer word to the red color, rather than *hârewdÊ°Ăłs, which "rudros/rudhirĂĄ/rubrus/rubius (indicatives of red)" stems from. Regarded as "pre-greek" in origin, cocci/cochi/kokkos, presence in IE and its ramifications is abundantly attested. With all the information that we have, to reconstruct even PIE and search for stems inside its logics is still a quasi-experimental excercise, same for PB.
By the way, perhaps akkadian "áž«uĆĄĆĄu" is a concurrent-living candidate for red as *hârewdÊ°Ăłs, in *russos in proto-italic and "rosso"/"rosa" in italian, "roxo" in portuguese and "rojo" in spanish while it has, perhaps (and only perhaps), survived through hitite in paralel to SA, as in "áž«uĆĄ" / "áž«uĆĄ-u-e-ni" / "áž«uĆĄ-weni" (to become fearful / agitated, contract ilness / fever or be ashamed - thus meaning "reddish in color").
@@Raonisk - I would think, following Wikitionary that Greek kokkos > kokkinos > Lat. coccinus > Welsh goch (not the first Brythonic borrowing from Latin, after all Britain was a province of Rome for many centuries and we're talking of an elitist word: an expensive tincture). Of course it could be a case of "full circle", if Greeks adopted it from Vasconic substrate, but the lack of rhotic thrill (rr) and diversity of meanings (seed or grain most notably, producing modern coconut for example, again via Latin coccus and Iberian Romance coco), strongly suggest non-Vasconic: seed is hazi, grain is garau, related to gari = wheat and garagar = barley.
This last may well be Vasconic loan into West Indoeuropean, as I can find convincing cognates of Latin granus only in Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, Italic and Albanian (where it's plausibly a Latin loan). The alleged IE root is *Ç”rÌ„hânĂłm, which could fit with gari + substantivization in -nĂłm. Uncertain but I just stumbled on it and sounds plausible, alternatively it could be an unsuspected true PIE-Vasconic cognate (the "official" etymology claims substantivization to *Ç”rÌ„hâ-nĂłs (âmatured, grown oldâ), but this line of thought is very obscure, leads to *Ç”erhâ-, which produces words like gerontocracy, geriatric, etc., or also Greek itself (all via Greek) but in Germanic it produces words like churl (English) or karl, i.e. "young man" or "free man". How "old, gray" relates to "grain, seed" is hard for me to see unless it is via "maturation" in a very broad sense.
Akkadian "hussu" could be a cognate of the PIE form indeed but with loss of the rhotic. I would however consider Arabic "humr" (red in plural), which relates to the singular "Êaáž„mar" or "áž„amrÄÊ", all them with some rhoticism (which was my point originally). I don't see any other possibly related Semitic forms (they do not just lack the rhotic but are quite different all of them).
Thank you very much for recommending us these authors! I just acquired Juliette Blevins' Evolutionary Phonology,
Analogy in Grammar and Advances in Proto-Basque Reconstruction (moved by your recommendations) and I think they're going to keep me hooked for a while đ
Very much enjoy your videos, but I just wanted to say that I was touched to hear Larry Trask's name and see his book. He taught evening courses I attended in the 70's on phonetics and on comparative linguistics. I thought he was a great teacher who helped me transition from physics to phonetics and speech technology. It was so sad that died young.
It was a great loss that he died so young. He was a remarkable linguist, and the most significant testament to his talent is that his resources on Basque remain some of the most important in the field, even two decades after his passing.
Love more this channel by the day, also I wonder if it could be that Basque borrowed many of these words from a pre-Celtic language.
I imagine it could have gone like this: Sredny Stog associated with Proto-Indo-Hittite, out of steppe expansion occurs, then Cordedware associated with Core Proto-Indo-European. Another expansion westwards with the Bell Beaker associated with Northwestern Indo-European, Bell Beaker folk in turn expand into Iberia and bring to the pre-Basque population pre-Celtic IE terms.
On another note would be cool if you could review the papers on an ergative reconstruction of PIE using internal methods by Roland Pooth.
If we were looking for a common homeland, and we assumed that this hypothesis had merit, then the most likely (in my mind) choice would be the Iron Gates Mesolithic. Southern European Mesolithic WHG were migrating across from SE Europe into Iberia. And the WHG and EHG mixture of Iron Gates seems to have influenced the Pontic cultures ancestral to the Proto-Indo-Europeans. You could imagine a mesolithic culture related to or identical with the Iron Gates culture spreading northeast to the Pontic and West to Iberia carrying an ancestral language. The mesolithic hunter-gatherers might have been the dominant language source when they mixed with incoming EEF peoples, though allowing inflence of the EEF language to push it further away from its proto roots. The Basque do have higher WHG Adna than other Iberians. I'm not saying I buy it, but that could be the way it played out.
Cool channel bruv. Glad I just found it
29:38 you should look for evidence of the indo european case and verb endings in basque postpositions (for cases) and personal pronouns or the copula (for verb endings). At the time of this split, these were not yet bound morphemes in the mother language.
Good point!
Hi to everyone in the Learn Hittite, Jackson Crawford, and Word Safari (Dr Gorton) venn diagram. đ
Sorry to change the subject but have you ever heard of a Basque/Mi'kmaq lexicon?
It was a list of vocabulary words used by Basques to trade with Mi'kmaq people in the 1500s.
If such a piece of paper exists, can you see a picture of it?
The Mi'kmaq dominated trade and had a trading vernacular and it supposedly used Basque words for certain trading goods.
Have you ever heard about it? Where is it, in a museum in Canada?
Maybe this article will help you - Bakker, P. (1989). âThe Language of the Coast Tribes is Half Basqueâ: A Basque-American Indian Pidgin in Use between Europeans and Native Americans in North America, ca. 1540-ca. 1640. Anthropological Linguistics, 31(3/4), 117-147.
@@LearnHittite Wow thanks so much!
Should the history books say the Basques discovered America?
Nice editing on this video!
Well, I try my best! Thanks for your kind words
Man that hypothesis is a mouthful
I think Basque is related to Iberian and Paleo-Sardinian, rather than Indo-European.
I think you may be right.
Great video
Thanks for the kind words!
bi and sei indicate an early relationship. Basque has undoubtedly influenced, to a small degree, the Ibero-Romance languages, such as in words for left (esquerda and izqueirda).
Also the very name Aranese comes from val d'aran. Aran means valley in Basque.
The words for six and seven also seem similar to those in Semitic. Perhaps it could be an early loan/wanderwort by means of third intermediate or substrate language?
@@bork2345 Yes, indeed!
"Bina" and "sei" in ancient Iberian, the closest thing we know to Basque. The presence of "sei" in Iberian clearly indicates it's not a Latin/Romance loan but very old.
Basque was widespread around the Pyrenees in recent times. It was banned in the market of Huesca as late as the XVII century and the toponimy strongly suggests it was present in post-Roman times all the way to Cerdanya (itsefl a Basque toponym) but further East it was already Romanized instead. This probably explains why West Catalan is more phonetically similar to other Iberian Romances, while Eastern Catalan has a more "exotic" phonetic rather.
Opinion: proto-languages before say 8000 BC are impossible to establish securely. Proposing such languages are interesting thought experiments, but I doubt we will ever come to know.
Have you read the book 'Basque and it's Closest Relatives' by John Bengston?
I have, I may do a video on it.
In all if this is vindicated in peer review it would allow us to construct earlier languages. It would be nice to have an idea of what languages were being spoken during the plaesticine
PB: *lelo
Portuguese: lero lero "a specific type of conversation, usually unimportant or meaningless"
Lacks an /m/, but possesses an /n/ and a /b/. I think this might exist in some language around the Great Lakes and Alaska, though there are recent sound changes from [m] to [b] or vice versa, but maybe [n] to [l] or [d] also. I'm not sure though, Tlingit is said to have an /m/ and an /n/ (formally merged with /l/?) but no /b/ or /p/. One thing this does make me think of though is that Korean /m/ sometimes (not always to be clear) sounds like [b] to me (which could still be distinct from the Korean "b" pronounced [p]), but I'm not sure if /n/ becomes [d] also (which would be symmetric). (I also think there's some processes interchangin /l/ and /n/ in Korean, but it might be just consonant cluster simplification.)
Thanks for the insight
@@LearnHittite Actually, what you need to look at is the UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database (UPSID). There's a website you can search it on, though I won't try to find the link because CZcams deletes any comment I post with a link in it. I realized after I wrote this comment that part of why I knew about this was because once I was trying to assess the realisticness of my natrualistic conlang having only one nasal phoneme pronounced [Ć] by default even initially (it's very weird it turns out), and one of the main things I did was search the UPSID.
ItÂŽs an interesting hypothesis, thereÂŽs no reason to dismiss out of hand that proto-Basque and Indo-european may have a common ancestor. IÂŽm not an expert in this area of linguistics, but it can be very hard to rule out borrowings, especially if they appeared early in the language.
One reviewer (Peter Bakker) made an interesting comment that quite a lot of the words seem to be close to Proto-Germanic forms, so some of BlevinsÂŽs list might be so-far unspotted Germanic loanwords, which would be an interesting discovery in its own right. Just as it would be interesting if it turned out Basque borrowed more directly from PIE than originally thought.
Blevins is a very serious linguist and real experts on this have said the work deserves serious consideration.
I don't think you can ever dismiss such claims of common ancestry. You can however sometimes dissmiss a claim that such an ancestry has been proven. Any two languages can be related if you go back far enough. But it is often impossible to know anything about it.
@@bertilow for sure, I donÂŽt think from what I read that she has proven it and I tend more towards the loanword hypothesis.
Indeed, plenty of previously proposed language families are now thought to be sprachbunds, although Altaic has its defenders still, most linguists now think itÂŽs a case of widespread borrowings from language contact.
A fantastic video. In relation to this topic, you might want to check the work of amateur linguist Eduard Selleslagh Suykens, published on his Academia page. All the best
I'll check it out!
đźwow nice...Here some Serbian words similar to pB words.
PB - SERBIAN
BAHALAUT - BELEUT(arcaic) (jocker,whimsical)
-BLEBETATI(blab,blather)
GIHAN-S - JAGNJE(lamb)(campidanese Sardinian leng.-S'AGNIONI(lamb))
DOL - DUG(Sebian)-long; DOLGO(Russian(long)); or DOLAC,DOL,DO(Serbian(small valley))
HISTHAR - HISTAR (old Danube name)
HIBAR - RIVA(river bank)
IBAR(river in Serbia)
SEDE -SESTI(to sit),(on sede(he sit))
DAR - DAR(gift),DAROVIT(gifted)
BAR -BARA(pond,puddle,bog(dark brown water))
BASO - BES(angry)
-BESAN,BESNO(wild)
BHOS -BOS(barefoot)
SOGO
ASAGO - BISAGE(saddlebags)
Bi - two ,sage-bags
LELO - LELEK(cockoo,vailing)
PRELO(village chorus)
BEN - BENA(fool),
-BENAVITI SE(talk nonsense)
HASTHUR - KOSTUR(skeleton)
đđđđ
Pseudo-Indo-european-hypothesis since years refuted!
I believe that many of the greatest academic works are "wrong" - in the sense that they are a first draft of a whole field of study, they are the opening salvo of the discussion, and then others come along and argue, rethink and find more data and fix the bugs. I wonder if that's the case here, what matters is where other scholars take this, in 5-10 years time this may result in the set of linguists with both knowledge of Basque and PIE getting larger .... And the awkward question .. is this evidence for an early farmer Anatolian Pre-Proto-IndoEuropean that was largely replaced by Yamana Proto-IndoEuropean?
Basques and sardinians are among the peoples with less yamnaya Y-chromossomes in Europe, so, there was admixture, but not as much as in other regions, sustaining a possible anatolian migration hypothesis.
Hi, just wanted to note a proto-word which make little sense in regards to the current meaning of the words and from what I heard:
23:39 "-hile" as moon makes little sense, since it is more likely that the basque word for moon "ilargia" comes from "hil" (dying or being dead) + "argi" (light).
As someone interested in European prehistory the timeline presented by the book for the spread of basque makes little sense. It is far more likely it spread with early grain agriculture or it was a language already on western europe used by the local huntergatherers. The timeline for the spread of basque from east to west presented in the book seems forced and there is no current evidence for such a movement of people
Good video, even though I understood little since I do not know much about linguistics.
The archeological insights are always so interesting and more than welcome!
Basque,Aquitan , paleo sarde does'nt have F and B sounds. "Tek" is hand in Ainou I'm not wrong. Is it possible that proto indo european will be ergative but what type of ergativity? With the finding of the Irulegi's hand that's a big discovery that probably make close Nothern East Iberian Aquitan, Auscii tribes. Arnaut Etchamendy will awful.
Lumpers have tendency, perhaps subconscious, to cherry pick evidence to support a hypothesis. There is a huge gulf between the earliest recorded basque and the earliest recorded IE languages. The hurdle to overcome is why has Basque become so different from even neighbouring IE langues. English and Hindi at a time depth of seperation of 5,000 years still show connections yet Basque and Italic share nothing but borrowings.
I still think it's an EEF language.
To here: 13:00 the criticism is wrong so far: near before the latest PIE, probably after PGerm and Hittite split off, PIE had an agglutination of multiple endings making the verb grammar very complex, something that is lacking in PGerm. Before that the verb inflection was poorer. It is reasonable to believe that the Ergative-Absolutive features of PIE originated some time before Hittite split off, and then it is likely that the protolanguage was postpositional. You can compare English and Latin and see that they have very few grammar features in common. I suspect that the long period of inheritance of numeral words is rather uniquely PIE, and there must have been a time before when numerals wasn't shared between languages, because people didn't count.
If we go far enough with that we're arrive at Hyperborean.
So... when is proto indoeuro-afroasiatic coming in line?
Can you recommend any articles or books on the subject? I can't find much other than Greenberg's theory on the matter and a number of seriously dated articles. Thanks for the suggestion though!
I think it's high time for artificial intelligence to be applied in this field as well as the use of super-computers and quantum computing, all of which add orders of magnitude. A chat GPT analysis anyone?
AI is not there yet for use in such applications. AI is powerful, but not that powerful
Basque is Pre-Indo European
this is theory. Tryth could be diffrent
There are 2 words, sounds almost the same: gusta and gutsa, one is salt the other cheese, what is what and why. gutsa sounds like the english guts, and gusta like yeast and Norwegean joste(dal) cheese(valley).
also: ivai (river) in opposit to avon is as baloi and balon (baloon); i = n
arrain (fish) is as herring.
uhalde (the land of a river between the dikes, sometimes inundated by high flood) is as the river Waal (Wahal)
Đ§ĐŸŃĐ° ŃĐŸĐČĐ° ĐœĐ° ĐłĐ»ĐŸĐ±ŃŃĐ” ĐČĐŸ ĐČŃĐ” ĐżĐŸĐ»Ń...
The Basque are the last surviving Pre-Indo Europeans and predate the arrival of Indo-Europeans. The Basque share a common culture and genetic ancestry to the ancient Vascones and Aquitanians. More recently, it has become accepted by researchers, historians, and linguistic experts that Indo-European languages such as Latin, Greek, etc. derive and developed from the Basque language.
Source?
They do not derive from Basque or some ancient Vasconic. They are influenced by Vasconic substrate, not the same thing.
The ultimate ancestors of Basque and Indoeuropean surely shared a sprachbund area around Göbekli Tepe in the early Neolithic. Then they parted ways for a very long time.
@@LuisAldamiz If the Kurgan Hypothesis is correct would PIE have any Anatolian connection? As I (interested layman) understand, Steppe Herder genes derive from Caucasian and Eastern Hunter Gatherer populations, not Anatolian. Or do you think PIE was spoken in Anatolia?
@@simong9067 - The Kurgan Theory is not anymore a mere hypthesis or even theory: it's confirmed scientific fact by now. Even Renfrew admitted defeat after the paleo-genetic evidence became overwhelming in support of Gimbutas' model (except for some very minor details).
The Caucasus (CHG) autosomal genetic pool is very close to the Iran Neolithic one and in fact it's a worse proxy because CHG is anomalously high in the so-called "Basal Eurasian" element (probably African but regardless). Call it what you wish: that component represents spread of Neolithic farmers from the Caucasus-Zagros region, as opposed to the Vasconic spread from Southern Anatolia (EEF in the literature) and other genetics also found in the Neolithic Levant and plausibly affecting Africa to one extent or another.
I think that a precursor of PIE (but not PIE as such) was surely spoken in this Iran Neolithic genetic area, IMO in NE Turkey or historical Armenia (but more research is needed). PIE corresponds to a later stage in what is now Southern Russia (steppes): Khvalynsk culture specifically.
Then in my understanding the earliest stage of Anatolian branched out in Maykop culture and later (possibly in combo with non-Indoeuropean Hurrians) spread southwards (Kura-Araxes culture) and finally westwards into Asia Minor (Luwians, Hittites, etc.) Notice that this is the only non-Yamna branch of Indoeuropean.
Yamna (evolved from Khvalynsk in the northern or Lower Volga region) is at the origin of everything else: Dacian-plus (Daco-Thracian-Illyrian?) via West Yamna, Tocharian via Afanasevo, Indo-Iranian directly in the very same region (only expanded since the Bronze Age) and, most importantly, Western Indoeuropean via Corded Ware (and its Vucedol early offshoot, which is at the root of Greco-Armenian).
We may discuss or refine about some lesser details but this archaeology-based model fits extremely well with the known phylogeny of Indoeuropean in terms linguistic.
I canât take seriously all those speculations about long-range relations between PIE and all kinds of Non-PIE.
Whenever they show me any alleged similarities, I see loans. This is, among other things, the case with the âgooseâ-word. The Uralic *iaĆkÄÉ or whatever the reconstructed form may be, is definitely a loan, and a rather recent one at that: not from PIE, but from some old satÉm language, maybe Proto-Baltic, judging by the anlaut. Cf. Lithuanian ĆŸĂŁsĂŹs < PIE *ÄŁÊ°hâens-. The velar in the Uralic word is another good piece of evidence: it arose from the nasal vowel articulated as [aĆ] or even [aĆg / aĆk] by the Uralic borrowers.
Apart from that, the âgooseâ-word looks like a hundred percent genuinely PIE formation, because it has an inner-PIE etymology. No, no, it does not come from the onomatopoeia *gha-gha-gha-. Itâs this *gha-gha-gha- or something else that comes from *ÄŁÊ°hâens-i-, which is a normal PIE word, most probably a compound with *hâems-, the stem Kloeckhorst reconstructs for Hittite words meaning âto give birthâ and âkingâ; it is also reminiscent of another âbirdâ: Ge. Amsel, Lat. merula < *hâems-hâel-. The first member - *ÄŁÊ°- is perhaps the root of the words for âlakeâ, âpondâ and the like: Lit. eĆŸiĂ âboundary (-strip), áșœĆŸeras âlakeâ, RuCS jÄzŃ âfish weirâ, Arm. ezr âbank, border, limitâ. So *ÄŁÊ°hâens- may simply be a âwater birdâ: *(hâ)eÄŁÊ°-hâems- ?
Speaking of onomatopoeia, well, guys, just forget it. Whoever starts using this dubious notion in their researches, makes themself ridiculous. There is no such thing as direct imitation of sound providing full-fledged words. It goes the other way round - from normal words to interjections including such ones that the speakers believe express real sounds and noises.
The Uralic form is actually *joĆkÄe or *jokÄe and it can't be loan word from this IE word in any way we know. The sound substitutions just don't match.
But this IE word for goose was indeed borrowed into West Uralic languages, from Proto-Balto-Slavic *ĆșansĂs into Early-Proto-Finnic as *ĆĄanĆĄi > Late-Proto-Finnic *hanhi > Finnish hanhi, Estonian hani ("goose") and into Proto-Mordvinic as *ÄĂ€nĆŸÉ > Erzya ŃĐ”ĐœĐ¶Đ” ("duck").
@@closetmonster5057 Thatâs it. If you want to convince me that this *joĆkÄe or *jokÄe is genuinely Uralic, created on the Uralic soil, you should show me its derivation: what Uralic root did come from? Since this word has no etymology within Uralic, it must needs be a loan. Not necessarily a direct one; the word could have made a long voyage before it landed in Uralic.
Some similarities in these examples and Hungarian:
bat-egy
hiru-hĂĄrom
aita-atya,
-ko dim. suffix - -ka, -ke,
bors might be a loan we got from trading similar to balea-bĂĄlna from Galizian Celtic, borsos ĂĄra van-it has a black peppery price (this sounds stupid in english but it's a common saying in a few countries to denote something expensive, why exactly would it be linked to the number five exactly i got no idea),
berhax; could this be maybe pronounced as perhax with interchangeable p-s and b-s? in that case it's somewhat similar to the word puha which has an identical meaning,
haritz is similar to the word hĂĄrs but we don't use it for oaks, it's the linden/lime tree,
ibar/hibar-part
bar-barna Trask's interpretation being squishy-porhanyĂłs (maybe, the root word and its equivalent are similar but this is reaching imo.)
asago-messze
hile-Hold (also used to refer to a month beside the Moon which use of the word makes sense for many reasons considering Hu also evolved with PIE cultural influence in the Middle-Ages to Modern-Era from when this word was used in this context)
PIE-Hu similarities
bheh-beszél(-ni)
der-erĆs
I don't think Proto-Uralic would be closer to PIE than it is to Basque personally, there's also a few similarities between Hungarian and Kannada like the word apa-ava which is the same and also some similar basic vocabulary.
I think this split between all of these happened way further back in time, it's actually a small wonder these languages still somewhat resemble each other in a few basic words considering even those change over time as languages evolve. (or devolve in some cases, losing the old meaning of the root word-these words were well preserved by our linguistical neologists)
Bat has nothing yo do with egy