From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 30303
Date: 2004-01-29
----- Original Message -----
From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Slavic *sorka (was: Satem and desatemisation (was:
Albanian (1)))
> 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.
But Slavic mostly has just #s-: Slovene, Czech/Slovak (straka < *sráka),
Lusatian, Polish, Slovincian. EastSlavic. Only SouthSlavic and Polabian has
#sv- (except Slovene and including OCS). And this is not as clear as it
seems: for instance litterary Croatian is svraka, but there is also sraka in
dialects. Baltic would point to *s- being primary.
> 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.
Is it possible that we have s'a:r-ika: here -i- not being part of the stem?
I can't explain the -a:- though...
> Nor of course does a putative Balto-Slavic *c'(v)a:rka:
I don't understand this "BSl" reconstruction...
>The final /-ka:/ would be
> natural in hypocoristics, which often take the shape "shortened word-
> form + suffixal -ko-/-ka:" (I find seka for 'sister' in Skok's SCr.
> etym. dict.). So it would be a perfect form of a word
> meaning 'little blackbird', supposing there was a word *c´va:r(s)na:
> in the relevant prestage of Albanian.
Seka is hardly equivalent to svraka. It is a much younger formation.
Mate