Larramendiren eraginaz eta

Resumen

The author puts forward his ideas on reading J.A. Lakarra's "Larramendiren hiztegigintzaren inguruan" (= ASJU XIX-I, 1985). He begins by adding some texts to those mentioned by Lakarra as employing neologisms of Larramendi's.
   Next, he argues that to make an assessment of the influence of L.'s work, one must take into account all the words (erderismos, i.e. barbarisms of non-native origin used by Basque writers) which disappeared as a result of L's work, as well as the formerly dialectal words that only became widespread after its completion (eg. adin); and that one should not restrict oneself only to terms invented by L. On the other hand, he does not consider that L's renovating spirit is confined to matters of vocabulary, but rather that it involves taking a new stance regarding the language, revaluing it by removing it from servitude to Castilian and making full use of its own resources.
   The author goes on to reflect on the direct link between the use of suffixes and the formation of the literary language in the case of Basque, comparing the situation before and after L in the southern Basque Country, and analysing to this end authors like Leizarraga, Etxeberri of Ziburu and Axular.
   The author establishes that the success, or lack of it, of L was not so much due to intrinsic errors in his project as to the cultural shortcomings of the Basques. Likewise, he insists on the need to differentiate not between different authors as regards L's influence, but between different types of language (cultured or popular); by doing so, it is possible to see how differences of this kind are to be found within the work of a single author (eg. Bizenta Mogel, M. Soroa, Iturzaeta). In the same way, the varying degree of L's influence upon the writings of certain regions (Llodio compared with Guipuzcoa) is explained as being directly related to the presence or absence of cultured Basques in them.
   The author concludes by warning that it should not be forgotten that the division of the language into registers is superimposed on dialectal divisions, and that there is no point in classifying the literary lexis as pertaining to any particular dialect. So, examples like trin(i)tate, poderoso, adoratu and so on, found in certain parts of Navarre, represent not the loss of a lexical heritage, but a lack of cultured Basques in these areas who might have used terms like hirutasun, etc.