Re: [tied] Rom. tsarca - Lit. s^árka

Sorry self correction..please read :

"I hope that nobody here will sustain that 'tsarka' is an 'finno-
ugric' word"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Piotr : Hung. szarka is rather obviously a loan from Slavic.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Viewing Piotr hesitations to sustain his assertion above, I will
> try to answer myself to my proposed questions. Based on the answers
> below this "rather obvious" in the sentence above will

become "rather

> dubios"....
>
> " 1. - when The Hungarian arrived in Balkans"
> The first tribes arrived in Pannonia around 898
>
> " 2. - from what Slavic Language (West, South etc..) this

word

> was borrowed by Hungarian and in what period of time after

Hungarian

> arrival. "
> From None. In sec X -XI -XII (the first possible

timeframes

> when this loan would have been possible to take place in Hungarian)
> Slavic Methathesis was already finished.
>
> So all Slavic words for 'magpie' at that moment where something
> like :
> *svroka (South Slavic) or *sroka (West Slavic, etc...)
>
> To help Piotr to remember this the Polish form is: sroka

`magpie'

>
> But the Magyar form is : 'szarka'. So the Magyar form doesn't
> show any trace of Slavic Methathesis that was already finished at
> that moment of time.
>
> So there is no doubt that the Magyar word is not from Slavic.
> (of course this 'no doubt' is not for those who saw 'Roman cities
> named 'dava' contructed by Romans everywhere in Balkans and

Dacia' )

>
> So such an assertion "rather obviously a loan from Slavic" is
> once again an assertion in contradiction with the facts: in other
> words is "a rather dubious" assertion.
>
> As result, because The Magyar word cannot be from Slavic the
> Romanian remain the single loaning path...
>
> The (Dacian) Romanian form is 'tsarka'. The Hungarian
> form 'szarka' fits well the Romanian one. So the Magyar form is a
> loan from Romanian.
>
> ( I hope that nobody here will sustain that 'tsarka' is an 'uro-
> altaic' word, an inherited word in Hungarian (of course once again

> except from here those that imagine Romans contructing dava's
> everywhere in the Roman Empire...)
>
> ('Unfortunately' the conclusion above does not fit Piotr's

model,

> model based on a lot of singularities: the last singularity in this
> model was 'a rare pre-Albanian (Dacian?) loan in Balto-Slavic'

based

> on which a Dacian 'crow' became a Balto-Slavic 'magpie' somewhere
> between 1000BC - 0BC ;-) )
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 8. Why this word cannot be a PAlb (Dacian?) one, kept in Romanian
> from its Substratum? (see below my derivation)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Of course it can.
> I post again my derivation because nobody could indicate any

issue

> regarding it (ignoring the derivation below is not an argument that
> this derivation is false):
>
> Lit. s^arka `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)
>
> As you see there is no issue to derive Romanian 'Tarca' from PIE
> *k^or?-k-?
>
>
> Only the Best,
> Marius
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"

<alexandru_mg3@...>

> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello Piotr,
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> > It fits *sorka because it's the same word, borrowed from Slavic

via

> > Hungarian [...and next to Romanian]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------

> >
> > This is only an affirmation : please take it easy, in a
> scientific
> > way, and used some timeframes here in order to proof it:
> >
> > You have to shows the following things:
> > 1. - when The Hungarian arrived in Balkans
> > 2. - from what Slavic Language (West, South etc..) this word
> was
> > borrowed by Hungarian and in what period of time after Hungarian
> > arrival.
> > (additional points to take into account here:
> > Is somehow Slavic Methathesis ended or not at that moment (As

> > investigated: 'yes was ove'r, but is up to you to go on further

> > this path)
> >
> > 3. - what was the borrowed Slavic form at that moment of time
> and
> > why?
> >
> > 4. - based on what phonetic Rules Hungarians adapt it (with
> > similar Slavic loans in Hungarian showing this rules)
> >
> > 5. - when the Romanians borrowed next this word from

Hungarian

> >
> > 6. - based on what phonetic Rules Romanian adapt it (with
> > similar Hungarian loans in Romanian showing this rules)
> >
> > 8. Why this word cannot be a PAlb (Dacian?) one kept in
> Romanian
> > from its Substratum? (seee below my derivation)
> >
> > 7. Why is not possible for Hungarians to loan this word

from

> > Romanian (only supossing that this word is in Romanian from PAlb
> > (Dacian?) Substratum?)
> >
> > So please used the "pity" word reagrding my proposal only

after

> > you will seriously answer to all the points above ;-)
> > Of course I propose all these ... only if you want to argument
> > your opinion... ;-)
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> > Regarding my proposal my arguments are very simple
> > (I posted them again)
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------

> > Romanian 'tsarca' is a PAlb (Dacian) word based on the arguments
> > below:
> >
> > Lit. s^arka `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)
> >
> > As you see there is no issue to derive Romanian 'Tarca' from PIE
> > *k^or?-k-?
> >
> > If you have doubts please show the error in the rules above but
> > don't try to refuse them using general appreciation "What a

pity ;-

> )"
> > with no arguments on your side.
> >
> > Only the Best,
> > Marius
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> > wrote:
> > > 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

> > > > 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-

> > 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'

> > 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

> > common
> > > source?
> > >
> > > Piotr