Re: [tied] Rom. tsarca - Lit. s^árka

--------------------------------------------------------------
Piotr : Hung. szarka is rather obviously a loan from Slavic.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Viewing Piotr hesitations to sustain his assertion above, I will
try to answer myself to my proposed questions. Based on the answers
below this "rather obvious" in the sentence above will become "rather
dubios"....

" 1. - when The Hungarian arrived in Balkans"
The first tribes arrived in Pannonia around 898

" 2. - from what Slavic Language (West, South etc..) this word
was borrowed by Hungarian and in what period of time after Hungarian
arrival. "
From None. In sec X -XI -XII (the first possible timeframes
when this loan would have been possible to take place in Hungarian)
Slavic Methathesis was already finished.

So all Slavic words for 'magpie' at that moment where something
like :
*svroka (South Slavic) or *sroka (West Slavic, etc...)

To help Piotr to remember this the Polish form is: sroka `magpie'

But the Magyar form is : 'szarka'. So the Magyar form doesn't
show any trace of Slavic Methathesis that was already finished at
that moment of time.

So there is no doubt that the Magyar word is not from Slavic.
(of course this 'no doubt' is not for those who saw 'Roman cities
named 'dava' contructed by Romans everywhere in Balkans and Dacia' )

So such an assertion "rather obviously a loan from Slavic" is
once again an assertion in contradiction with the facts: in other
words is "a rather dubious" assertion.

As result, because The Magyar word cannot be from Slavic the
Romanian remain the single loaning path...

The (Dacian) Romanian form is 'tsarka'. The Hungarian
form 'szarka' fits well the Romanian one. So the Magyar form is a
loan from Romanian.

( I hope that nobody here will sustain that 'tsarka' is an 'uro-
altaic' word, an inherited word in Hungarian (of course once again I
except from here those that imagine Romans contructing dava's
everywhere in the Roman Empire...)

('Unfortunately' the conclusion above does not fit Piotr's model,
model based on a lot of singularities: the last singularity in this
model was 'a rare pre-Albanian (Dacian?) loan in Balto-Slavic' based
on which a Dacian 'crow' became a Balto-Slavic 'magpie' somewhere
between 1000BC - 0BC ;-) )

--------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Why this word cannot be a PAlb (Dacian?) one, kept in Romanian
from its Substratum? (see below my derivation)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it can.
I post again my derivation because nobody could indicate any issue
regarding it (ignoring the derivation below is not an argument that
this derivation is false):

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-?


Only the Best,
Marius
















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

>
>
> 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