Re: [tied] Rom. tsarca - Lit. s^árka

From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 35279
Date: 2004-12-03

-------------------------------------------------------------------
They borrowed it from one of the early Slavic dialects of Pannonia,
not
from Proto-Slavic!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, well: an 'unknown' 'early' Slavic Dialect 'of
Pannonia'....good argument. Could you define it?
Some attested words in these 'early' Slavic 'dialects' 'of Pannonia',
their phonetic rules etc... would be welcome here (as you requested
sometimes ago regarding Dacian Language) .

Why do you mean by 'early' ? We are already in sec X-XII when
Hungarian could borrowed this word.
I supposed that 'early' means: a Slavic Dialect without
Methathesis, isn't it? Is this possible? In sec X-XII? Of course not.

Why 'not from Proto-Slavic'? Only to can explain Hungarian 'szarka'?
So the Czechs and Slovaks are from Proto-Slavic but nearby
them 'some' 'Slavic dialects' are not from 'Proto-Slavic'?

What was the word for 'tsarka' in this 'Pannonia' Slavic dialects
in sec X-XII (when the Czech, Slovaks, etc... were already well
organized in that region)? Where you found this word attested
in 'Slavic Pannonia' dialects?

Or the idea above is just not to say directly that "is not from
Romanian"?

All these only to explain Hungarian 'szarka' being from Slavic?

In the past, yourself said that you don't like to talk
about 'unknown' dialects or languages based only on some toponims
etc...I was the first that learned this idea from you: that the
current languages should be the first source not the second one.
But seems that the idea above is available sometimes and sometimes
not in your argumentation.

So one 'new' Slavic dialect 'on the table' 'not from Proto-
Slavic'(?!) (but from where in this case?) 'an early one' (why early?
in sec X-XII?) 'of Pannonia' only to explain one Hungarian word?

A lot of 'not well defined' 'determiners' in a single sentence only
to explain one word?

Is this a good Method? (where is Okam Rasor here? -> to use one of
you favorite arguments;:) )

Only the Best,
Marius







--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> On 04-12-02 21:55, alex wrote:
>
> > so far so right. The problem is the time here. Hungarians arrived
at the end
> > of X century, almost XI century. The PSl seems to be in a another
period of
> > time, right?
>
> They borrowed it from one of the early Slavic dialects of Pannonia,
not
> from Proto-Slavic!
>
> Piotr