Re: Rom. tsarca - Lit. s^árka

------------------------------------------------------------------
The reconstruction "*k^orHkeh2" has the following weaknesses:

1. It does not account for the Sl. forms with sv- which match Alb.
sorrë in a most intriguing way.

2. The -i- of Skt. s'a:rika: is not from schwa, cf. the Iranian
borrowing in Armenian sarik. Also, Brugmann's law appears not to
produce length before -C&-, cf. IIr. *bharamïnas (Av. bar&mno:) vs.
Gk. pherómenos.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I want only to add that I fully agree that *k^orHkeh2 generates the
issues describes above.

But the co-existance of Rom. 'Tarca' 'magpie' together with
Rom. 'cioara' 'crow' is a clear argument against the idea to match
Alb. 'sorrë' with BSl. forms for 'magpie', via a loaning path from
the PAlb word for 'crow' to BSl. word for 'magpie'

(...trying to formally solved the above issues)

In fact, Lit. s^árka 'magpie' and Romanian 'tsarka' 'id.' reflect
exactly the same word, both forms reflecting a common PIE *k^or?-k-?.
'magpie'

Best Regards,
Marius





--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> When <sorrë> was discussed here, the dicussion converged on the
> optimal
> solution: PIE *kWersnah2 (literally 'black (bird)') > *c'We:rna: >
> *c'Wa:rra: (--> PBSl. *c'va:r- + -ka: > PSl. *s(v)órka, Lith.

s^árka)

> >
> *c^o:rra (--> Rom. cioarã) > sorrë. The root is the same as in PSl.
> c^IrnU and Skt. kRs.n.a- 'black' < *kWr.snó-.
>
> A rare example of a pre-Alb. (Dacian?) loan in BSl!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I doubt about this idea : to match PAlb(Dacian?) "c^ora" 'crow'
> with the PSl. *s(v)órka, Lith. s^árka 'magpie' based on a loan idea
> from a PAlb(Dacian?) form 'c'Wa:rra:' 'crow' to a BSl. 'magpie'.
>
> Why?
>
> Because in Romanian we have both words for 'magpie' and

for 'crow':

>
> Rom. Tarcã /cark&/ 'magpie'
> Rom. cioarã /c^oar&/ 'crow'
>
> So we have 2 distinct PAlb(Dacian?) words in Romanian, and the
> Romanian clearly shows that they are disctinct by preserving the
> original PAlb(Dacian?): c and c^.
>
> Rom. 'Tarcã' is wrong considered by DEX a loan from Hungarian

when

> in fact the Magyar word is a loan from Romanian.
> (please see http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=%5Ctarca&source=)
> The preservation of original PAlb.(Dacian?) 'c' in

Romanian 'Tarca'

> from PIE k^ is the main argument that sustained the idea above.
>
>
> Rom. Tarcã 'magpie' is in my opinion a PAlb(Dacian?) word with no
> correspondant in today Alb. (more probable this word existed in
> Albanian too but then was lost).
>
> Why?
>
> Because rom. tsarcã < PAlb. *tsarka /carka/ < PIE k^or-k
> fits perfectly with Lith. s^árka and PSl. *s(v)órka
>
> Derivations:
> ------------
> Lit. s^árka `magpie' < PIE *k^orH-k-eh2?? (proposed by

Derksen))

> Rom. tsarca 'magpie' < PAlb tsarka /carka/ < same PIE *k^orH-k-

eh2??

>
> where in Romanian word we have the known PAlb(Dacian?) rules:
> 1. PIE *o > PAlb a
> 2. PIE *k^ > PAlb c
>
> (also: Old Prussian 'sarke' `magpie' PSl. *sórka)
>
> So the PIE proto-form for PAlb(Dacian?) 'c^ora' (and its possible
> cognates) still remain open.
>
> Only the Best,
> Marius
>
>
> Note:
> Another PAlb(Dacian?) word in Romanian with no correspondant in
> today Albanian, is Romanian 'doinã' 'kind of popular song' (see
> Lit. 'daina'), and I show this to point out that Rom.'Tarca' is not

a

> singular example of a PAlb(Dacian?) word in Romanian with no
> counterpart in today Albanian.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> wrote:
> > On 04-11-30 20:45, alex wrote:
> >
> > > Reading this and thinking about one asks himself what about
> Albanian
> > > "sorrë"? If the word as Orell here shows
> > > cannot derive from any *kor- or k^or, then is the word a loan?

Or

> I forgot
> > > something here since all the time the pair was kept as a true
> cognate: Rom.
> > > "c^oarã" (cioarã) with Alb. "sorrë"
> >
> > You forgot about
> >
> > (1) *k^w- > *c'W > *c^- > s- (and *g^(H)w- > *3^ > z-);
> > (2) labiovelars before front vowels (the same development as

above)

> >
> > When <sorrë> was discussed here, the dicussion converged on the
> optimal
> > solution: PIE *kWersnah2 (literally 'black (bird)') > *c'We:rna:
>
> > *c'Wa:rra: (--> PBSl. *c'va:r- + -ka: > PSl. *s(v)órka, Lith.
> s^árka) >
> > *c^o:rra (--> Rom. cioarã) > sorrë. The root is the same as in

PSl.

> > c^IrnU and Skt. kRs.n.a- 'black' < *kWr.snó-.
> >
> > A rare example of a pre-Alb. (Dacian?) loan in BSl!
> >
> > See
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/30228
> >
> > Piotr