Re: Rom. tsarca - Lit. s^árka

>I. Ovid DensuSianu: "Histoire de la Langue Roumaine"
>(this book is written at the same level as Rosetti's book,
>please consult it if possible: is in French too)
>
>"L'origine hongroise de 't,arcã' (hong. 'szarka') ne nous semble
>pas suffisamment démontrée, bien qu'elle soit admise par
>quelques savants."

"Ne nous semble pas suffisamment démontrée" is way more elegant
than "it's wrong" (or worse: "malarkey, bunkum, crap" :)). But
it'd be highly interesting for the list, I suppose, to read his
judgment. Is there any possibility for you to transcribe a few
lines concerning tsarca?

>II. Al. Rosetti "Istoria Limbii Romane"
>
>In the chapter : "Elemente Maghiare in Limba Rom^ana" (vol IV-
>VI), Rosetti present a list of about 75 Hungarian Loans in Romanian.
>
>'Tsarca/szarka' is not present in this list. In fact there is no
>reference to 't,arca' in this chapter and is well known Rosetti's
>position to not include any problematic word in such reference
>lists.

Does it mean that the word isn't included in other of Rosetti's
lists either?

>(as another example of such reference list see Rosetti's 'Albanian-
>Romanian commmon word list' that I uploaded in the past for
>Balkanika and Cybalist)

Did Rosetti insert tsarca in the Albanian-Romanian words list?

> So please use carefully the 'all' particle when you make reference
>to Romanian Linguist positions, especially on such specific points
>because there are peoples in this forum that cannot know such
>details regarding such specific positions presented by Romanian
>Linguists ...and will retain your assertations as definitive
>conclusions.

Awright, but my point was to underline that a language dictionary
by tha Academy of Sciences of one country you cannot dismiss as
a piece of garbage only because one or two or ten scholars in the
history of the research of a problem had doubts on a common thesis
or even rejected that thesis altogether. That what's put in that
dictionary reflect the mainstream, as well as what has been upgraded
and updated after the death of those luminaries who didn't agree
with the mainstream. The way you refer to these dictionaries, i.e.
the authors, might induce the impression that these works are not
based on scientific work.

But what you try to convey is something different, namely that
in some cases some scholars had doubts or "dissenting" conclusions
(opinions). But this is a common phenomenon. And Densusianu and
Rosetti might have been "counterattacked" by luminaries of the
same magnitude as, say, Sextil Pu$cariu, Al. Philippide, Dim.
Macrea, Al. Graur, Cicerone Poghirc, Grig Brâncu$. Whatever.

On this list, however, people who know the most plausible derivation
rules show us, too, that, in the case of tsarca/szarka the Hungarian
link cannot be gotten rid of so easily in exchange for... what?

>Only the Best,
>Marius
>
>P.S. Seems that you didn't consult DensuSianu in detail if you can
>consider his book as a 'deprecated' one. (I doubt that you can make
>such an assertion in any University in Romania).

Pls. pay attention to what I really wrote: the book on prehistoric
Dacia by his uncle, a book which is not a genuine treatise on
linguistics. (This is exactly why I asked which of the DensuSianus:
the elder or the younger?)

George