Piotr said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is, it COULDN'T show it in Hungarian, since
> Hungarian didn't tolerate any initial clustes at the time. Even if
the Slavic source was /sraka/ or the like, Hungarian HAD TO borrow
it with secondary metathesis (like in these cases) or (as an
alternative strategy) with an epenthetic vowel, as in <király> from
<kralj>.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Hungarian didn't tolerate any initial clustes at the time.
-------------------------------------------------------------
You are right ..(I already tell this when discussed
about 'szidalom' / 'sudalma' 'alma' -> 'alom') etc..
2. Hungarian HAD TO borrow it with secondary metathesis (like in
these cases)
-------------------------------------------------------------
No. there is no secondary Methathesis in Hungarian.
3. or (as an alternative strategy) with an epenthetic vowel, as in
<király> from <kralj>.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You are right. Hungarian treat this cluster with an an epenthetic
vowel, as in <király> from <kralj>.
And surprize : this appears in 'zserda' too ...Older
(regionalism) 'szereda'.
So this is a clear trace of Methathesis in Hungarian 'szer(e)da'
But 'szarka' don't have other regional form.
See below e-mail received from my hungarian friend.
So you have to find a Hungarian regionalism for 'szarka' in
Hungarian showing the epenthetic vowel...
Until then your argument is valid regarding 'szer(e)da' BUT
invalid regarding 'szarka'.
Only the Best,
Marius
E-Mail:
---------
From: botond...
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 12:55 PM
To: Alexandru, Marius
Servus,
Trebuie sa verific dar cred ca m-am uitat in trecut la szerda si era
sirbo-croat in dictionarul meu.
O pronuntie (regionala) este szereda. Altceva nu stiu.
Szarka n-are alta pronuntie. Ma uit diseara la etimologie.Totusi am
citit pe internet ca s-a scris zarka in trecut.
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> On 04-12-03 01:14, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> O sancta simplicitas! How many times do we have to get through this
> ritual? It's only ignorance that prevents you from having doubts.
An
> example: Hung. szerda 'Wednesday' is BEYOND ALL DOUBT a loan from
Slavic
> (*serda > Pol. s'roda, Russ. sereda, Cz. str^eda) although it shows
no
> metathesis. The fact is, it COULDN'T show it in Hungarian, since
> Hungarian didn't tolerate any initial clustes at the time. Even if
the
> Slavic source was /sraka/ or the like, Hungarian HAD TO borrow it
with
> secondary metathesis (like in these cases) or (as an alternative
> strategy) with an epenthetic vowel, as in <király> from <kralj>.
>
> Piotr