Hello Piotr,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It fits *sorka because it's the same word, borrowed from Slavic via
Hungarian [...and next to Romanian]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This is only an affirmation : please take it easy, in a scientific
way, and used some timeframes here in order to proof it:
You have to shows the following things:
1. - when The Hungarian arrived in Balkans
2. - from what Slavic Language (West, South etc..) this word was
borrowed by Hungarian and in what period of time after Hungarian
arrival.
(additional points to take into account here:
Is somehow Slavic Methathesis ended or not at that moment (As I
investigated: 'yes was ove'r, but is up to you to go on further on
this path)
3. - what was the borrowed Slavic form at that moment of time and
why?
4. - based on what phonetic Rules Hungarians adapt it (with
similar Slavic loans in Hungarian showing this rules)
5. - when the Romanians borrowed next this word from Hungarian
6. - based on what phonetic Rules Romanian adapt it (with
similar Hungarian loans in Romanian showing this rules)
8. Why this word cannot be a PAlb (Dacian?) one kept in Romanian
from its Substratum? (seee below my derivation)
7. Why is not possible for Hungarians to loan this word from
Romanian (only supossing that this word is in Romanian from PAlb
(Dacian?) Substratum?)
So please used the "pity" word reagrding my proposal only after
you will seriously answer to all the points above ;-)
Of course I propose all these ... only if you want to argument
your opinion... ;-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding my proposal my arguments are very simple
(I posted them again)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Romanian 'tsarca' is a PAlb (Dacian) word based on the arguments
below:
Lit. s^arka `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)
As you see there is no issue to derive Romanian 'Tarca' from PIE
*k^or?-k-?
If you have doubts please show the error in the rules above but
don't try to refuse them using general appreciation "What a pity ;-)"
with no arguments on your side.
Only the Best,
Marius
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> On 04-12-01 17:10, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Why wrongly?
>
> > when in fact the Magyar word is a loan from Romanian.
>
> Hung. szarka is rather obviously a loan from Slavic.
>
> > (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).
>
> What a pity ;-)
>
> > Why?
> >
> > Because rom. tsarcã < PAlb. *tsarka /carka/ < PIE k^or-k
> > fits perfectly with Lith. s^árka and PSl. *s(v)órka
>
> It fits *sorka because it's the same word, borrowed from Slavic via
> Hungarian.
>
> > 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.
>
> This is just a pair of lookalikes, not of cognates. How CAN they be
> related? How do you propose to derive Lith. ai and Rom. oi from a
common
> source?
>
> Piotr