Re: [tied] Rom. tsarca - Lit. s^árka

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