For those interested in this subject, I recommend:

Bakker, Peter
1989 "'The Language of the Coast Tribes is Half Basque': A
Basque-American Indian Pidgin, 1540-1640." Anthropological Linguistics
31 (3-4, Fall and Winter), pp. 117-147.

Bakker is a widely published author on pidgins, especially Basque
pidgins. Anthropological Linguistics is a peer-reviewed journal
published by the Department of Anthropology and the American Indian
Studies Research Institute, Indiana University.

Bakker provides documentary sources for the existence of a Basque-based
pidgin specifically in Micmac and Montagnais; possibly in Beothuk,
Abnaki-Maliseet, and Laurentian Iroquois (e.g. Hochelaga); but it is
absent in Inuit.

As for dating the origins of the pidgins, Bakker argues that while the
earliest documentary evidence for a Basque-Indian pidgin is Jacques
Cartier (1542), because "Cartier met European fishing vessels during his
first voyage [1534] ... undoubtedly trade contacts between natives and
Europeans already existed" (p.134).

Moreover, he suggests that it is

"...even possible to speculate on a pre-Columbian existence of
European-based pidgins in the New World on the basis of the first word
recorded from the mouth of North American natives. The first documented
visit of a european to North America (after the Norse, to be sure) were
the voyages of the brothers John and Sebastian Cabot, in 1497 and 1507.

Their own records are lost, but Peter Martyr (1530), who possibly had
access to their documentation, wrote in 1512, 'Sebastian Cabot himself
named those lands /Baccalaos/ because in the seas thereabout he found so
great a multitude of certain big fish much like tuna (which the
inhabitants call Baccalaos)...' If what Martyr writes is true, then
Cabot recorded the first North American pidgin word. In none of the
native languages along the northeastern coast is there as word
resembling /baccalao(s)/ for what should be 'cod'. Although it remains
to be decided whether this is the Basque word /bacalau/ or the
Portuguese /bacalhau/, the latter is the more likely source, since by
1512 the Portuguese were already importing cod, and there is no evidence
of the presence of Basque fishermen at so early a date" (p. 134-5).

Bakker sets up a paradigm for establishing a Basque origin of words:
-in older sources, absence from modern Micmac;
-close resemblance to Basque in form and meaning;
-probability of use in seasonal trading contexts;
-lack of resemblance to proto-Algonquian forms;
-use in Basque coastal dialects.

From this, Bakker rejected a number of "accidental similarities" and
then provides about 40 pidgin words and about 10 sentences from
sixteenth and seventeenth century sources with their Basque equivalents.

I, personally, have no direct expertise in this matter, but I also see
no immediate reason to argue with Bakker's presentation.

tk

"t(nospam)kavanagh" <"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:bvp8hv$1r8$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
For those interested in this subject, I recommend:

Bakker, Peter
1989 "'The Language of the Coast Tribes is Half Basque': A
Basque-American Indian Pidgin, 1540-1640." Anthropological Linguistics
31 (3-4, Fall and Winter), pp. 117-147.

Bakker is a widely published author on pidgins, especially Basque
pidgins. Anthropological Linguistics is a peer-reviewed journal
published by the Department of Anthropology and the American Indian
Studies Research Institute, Indiana University.

Bakker provides documentary sources for the existence of a Basque-based
pidgin specifically in Micmac and Montagnais; possibly in Beothuk,
Abnaki-Maliseet, and Laurentian Iroquois (e.g. Hochelaga); but it is
absent in Inuit.

As for dating the origins of the pidgins, Bakker argues that while the
earliest documentary evidence for a Basque-Indian pidgin is Jacques
Cartier (1542), because "Cartier met European fishing vessels during his
first voyage [1534] ... undoubtedly trade contacts between natives and
Europeans already existed" (p.134).

Thanks tk, the first paragraph was very informative but this the last one
you found the source

which I actually gave the group two years ago. This was
one of three sources I refered to the other day when I spoke of the first
explorers. One of the other sources is written by one who participated in
Cartier's voyage.

Moreover, he suggests that it is

"...even possible to speculate on a pre-Columbian existence of
European-based pidgins in the New World on the basis of the first word
recorded from the mouth of North American natives. The first documented
visit of a european to North America (after the Norse, to be sure) were
the voyages of the brothers John and Sebastian Cabot, in 1497 and 1507.

Incorrect,
as a Danich Marine Officer wrote in an article the other year the first
documented contact was in 1477.

Their own records are lost, but Peter Martyr (1530), who possibly had
access to their documentation, wrote in 1512, 'Sebastian Cabot himself
named those lands /Baccalaos/ because in the seas thereabout he found so
great a multitude of certain big fish much like tuna (which the
inhabitants call Baccalaos)...' If what Martyr writes is true, then
Cabot recorded the first North American pidgin word. In none of the
native languages along the northeastern coast is there as word
resembling /baccalao(s)/ for what should be 'cod'. Although it remains
to be decided whether this is the Basque word /bacalau/ or the
Portuguese /bacalhau/, the latter is the more likely source, since by
1512 the Portuguese were already importing cod, and there is no evidence
of the presence of Basque fishermen at so early a date" (p. 134-5).

As a Basque scholar and I discussed and agreed upon two or three years ago,
the Bascues at first (=before 1430) were enrolled by the Norse for whale-
and cod-fishing. There are at least one Icelandic and one Norwegian works
where the fishing in the North Western Atlantic from 1000 AD is presented
and where the Basques are mentioned.

Bakker sets up a paradigm for establishing a Basque origin of words:
-in older sources, absence from modern Micmac;
-close resemblance to Basque in form and meaning;
-probability of use in seasonal trading contexts;
-lack of resemblance to proto-Algonquian forms;
-use in Basque coastal dialects.

From this, Bakker rejected a number of "accidental similarities" and
then provides about 40 pidgin words and about 10 sentences from
sixteenth and seventeenth century sources with their Basque equivalents.

I, personally, have no direct expertise in this matter, but I also see
no immediate reason to argue with Bakker's presentation.

Neither do I. It sounds logic and corresponds with information I have re.
Pre-Columbian contacts.

And you have thus also shown that you have missed the whole point of the
article. Do any of those sources to which you refer make ANY mention of
pidgin?

"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

--- snip ----

And you have thus also shown that you have missed the whole point of the
article. Do any of those sources to which you refer make ANY mention of
pidgin?

I took it that they pointed to the possible existence of circumstances
in which a pidgin could develop at dates earlier than those known to
Bakker.

"Eric Stevens" wrote...
"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

--- snip ----

And you have thus also shown that you have missed the whole point of the
article. Do any of those sources to which you refer make ANY mention of
pidgin?

I took it that they pointed to the possible existence of circumstances
in which a pidgin could develop at dates earlier than those known to
Bakker.

build a premise upon known evidence, not speculation. quibbling over a twenty
year difference is irrelevant to the point in this context. i.e. "when" is not
the bases for the case, but the "how" is.

With respect, you may be interested in a history devoid of dates, but

Inger E Johansson wrote:

"t(nospam)kavanagh" <"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:bvp8hv$1r8$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
For those interested in this subject, I recommend:

Bakker, Peter
1989 "'The Language of the Coast Tribes is Half Basque': A
Basque-American Indian Pidgin, 1540-1640." Anthropological Linguistics
31 (3-4, Fall and Winter), pp. 117-147.

Bakker is a widely published author on pidgins, especially Basque
pidgins. Anthropological Linguistics is a peer-reviewed journal
published by the Department of Anthropology and the American Indian
Studies Research Institute, Indiana University.

Bakker provides documentary sources for the existence of a
Basque-based
pidgin specifically in Micmac and Montagnais; possibly in Beothuk,
Abnaki-Maliseet, and Laurentian Iroquois (e.g. Hochelaga); but it is
absent in Inuit.

As for dating the origins of the pidgins, Bakker argues that while the
earliest documentary evidence for a Basque-Indian pidgin is Jacques
Cartier (1542), because "Cartier met European fishing vessels during
his
first voyage [1534] ... undoubtedly trade contacts between natives and
Europeans already existed" (p.134).

Thanks tk, the first paragraph was very informative but this the last
one
you found the source

*I* found the source? I quote Bakker, did you? If not your comment is
irrelevant.

which I actually gave the group two years ago. This was
one of three sources I refered to the other day when I spoke of the
first
explorers. One of the other sources is written by one who participated
in
Cartier's voyage.

Moreover, he suggests that it is

"...even possible to speculate on a pre-Columbian existence of
European-based pidgins in the New World on the basis of the first word
recorded from the mouth of North American natives. The first
documented
visit of a european to North America (after the Norse, to be sure)
were
the voyages of the brothers John and Sebastian Cabot, in 1497 and
1507.

Incorrect,
as a Danich Marine Officer wrote in an article the other year the first
documented contact was in 1477.

Irrelevant to the point

Their own records are lost, but Peter Martyr (1530), who possibly had
access to their documentation, wrote in 1512, 'Sebastian Cabot himself
named those lands /Baccalaos/ because in the seas thereabout he found
so
great a multitude of certain big fish much like tuna (which the
inhabitants call Baccalaos)...' If what Martyr writes is true, then
Cabot recorded the first North American pidgin word. In none of the
native languages along the northeastern coast is there as word
resembling /baccalao(s)/ for what should be 'cod'. Although it remains
to be decided whether this is the Basque word /bacalau/ or the
Portuguese /bacalhau/, the latter is the more likely source, since by
1512 the Portuguese were already importing cod, and there is no
evidence
of the presence of Basque fishermen at so early a date" (p. 134-5).

As a Basque scholar and I discussed and agreed upon two or three years
ago,
the Bascues at first (=before 1430) were enrolled by the Norse for
whale-
and cod-fishing. There are at least one Icelandic and one Norwegian
works
where the fishing in the North Western Atlantic from 1000 AD is
presented
and where the Basques are mentioned.

Barely relevant.

Bakker sets up a paradigm for establishing a Basque origin of words:
-in older sources, absence from modern Micmac;
-close resemblance to Basque in form and meaning;
-probability of use in seasonal trading contexts;
-lack of resemblance to proto-Algonquian forms;
-use in Basque coastal dialects.

From this, Bakker rejected a number of "accidental similarities" and
then provides about 40 pidgin words and about 10 sentences from
sixteenth and seventeenth century sources with their Basque
equivalents.

I, personally, have no direct expertise in this matter, but I also see
no immediate reason to argue with Bakker's presentation.

Neither do I. It sounds logic and corresponds with information I have
re.
Pre-Columbian contacts.

And you have thus also shown that you have missed the whole point of the
article. Do any of those sources to which you refer make ANY mention of
pidgin?

tk

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:48:54 -0700, "Tedd Jacobs"
Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote...
"t(nospam)kavanagh" wrote:

--- snip ----

And you have thus also shown that you have missed the whole point of the
article. Do any of those sources to which you refer make ANY mention of
pidgin?

I took it that they pointed to the possible existence of circumstances
in which a pidgin could develop at dates earlier than those known to
Bakker.

build a premise upon known evidence, not speculation. quibbling over a twenty
year difference is irrelevant to the point in this context. i.e. "when" is
not
the bases for the case, but the "how" is.

With respect, you may be interested in a history devoid of dates, but
I am not. A pre-Columbian basque pidgin in that part of the world
would add to the presently tenuous evidence of more than fleeting
pre-Columbian contact.

Inger E Johansson wrote:

Thanks tk, the first paragraph was very informative but this the last
one
you found the source

*I* found the source? I quote Bakker, did you? If not your comment is
irrelevant.

which I actually gave the group two years ago. This was
one of three sources I refered to the other day when I spoke of the
first
explorers. One of the other sources is written by one who participated
in
Cartier's voyage.

t(nospam)kavanagh <"tkavanag"@indiana.edu> wrote in message ...

Inger E Johansson wrote:

Thanks tk, the first paragraph was very informative but this the last
one
you found the source

*I* found the source? I quote Bakker, did you? If not your comment is
irrelevant.

which I actually gave the group two years ago. This was
one of three sources I refered to the other day when I spoke of the
first
explorers. One of the other sources is written by one who participated
in
Cartier's voyage.

This is getting surreal. Bakker's paper was introduced to this group back
in 1995, mentioned repeatedly thereafter, and tk reminded readers of it in
1998....

[Google Groups search "Bakker Basque" ]

David B.

David B wrote:

This is getting surreal. Bakker's paper was introduced to this group
back
in 1995, mentioned repeatedly thereafter, and tk reminded readers of it
in
1998....

[Google Groups search "Bakker Basque" ]

I *knew* I had read that article before. ;-)

tk

many of the french/spanish sailors of the 1500s were ethnic basques.
therefore it doesn't seem like the presence of basque pidgin would be
an indication of pre-columbian contact.

I, personally, have no direct expertise in this matter, but I also see
no immediate reason to argue with Bakker's presentation.

David B wrote:

t(nospam)kavanagh <"tkavanag"@indiana.edu> wrote in message ...

Inger E Johansson wrote:

Thanks tk, the first paragraph was very informative but this the last

one

you found the source

*I* found the source? I quote Bakker, did you? If not your comment is
irrelevant.


which I actually gave the group two years ago. This was
one of three sources I refered to the other day when I spoke of the

first

explorers. One of the other sources is written by one who participated

in

Cartier's voyage.

This is getting surreal. Bakker's paper was introduced to this group back
in 1995, mentioned repeatedly thereafter, and tk reminded readers of it in
1998....

[Google Groups search "Bakker Basque" ]

David B.


I *knew* I had read that article before.
It actually came out in 1991. Peter Bakker_The mysterious link between