Re: [tied] Slavic *sorka (was: Satem and desatemisation (was: Alban

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
wrote:

> 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.

It would point to the existence of variants. Of the two variants,
the longer one will have to be the older. Baltic just confirms the
existence of the reduced form.

[...]

> > Nor of course does a putative Balto-Slavic *c'(v)a:rka:
>
> I don't understand this "BSl" reconstruction...

The initial is meant as "Balto-Slavic reflex of IE *k^" as per
Trubac^ëv. Anyone who likes may read k^- or s^- instead. The long
vocalism is an easy way of writing "acute on /ar/ before consonant".

>
> >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.

The *type* is IE.

Jens