------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it needed to add an auxiliary vowel in that case, either *szaraka
or *eszraka or *szereke
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it needed, but there is no trace of it.
There is no trace of ANY *szaraka or *eszraka or *szereke in
Hungarian.
As argument here is a second answer that I received today from my
Hungarian friend :
My question:
" Dar szarka se pronunta si szarVka, regional ? Sau nu? "
"szarka n-are alta pronuntie"...
and in a second mail:
"Revin la szarka. M-am gindit putin si nu cred ca exista o vocala
care se poate folosi in szarVka.
Sint putine posibilitati (szaruka,szaraka,szarika,szareka,szaroka,
etc) si nici una nu e viabila.
Deci nu cred ca exista regionalism de acest gen."
To resume the message above written by a Hungarian native speaker:
"szarka has no other pronunciation in Hungarian."
and in a second mail:
"I come back with 'szarka'. I think a little bit more
regarding 'szarVka' and I think that there is no vowel to can be used
in 'szarVka'...
There are few possibilities :
(szaruka,szaraka,szarika,szareka,szaroka, etc) and none of them is
possible. So I think that there is no Regionalism of this kind
for 'szarka'"
So in conclusion there is No Slavic Metathesis trace in
Hungarian 'szarka'.
However the Slavic Methathesis is cleary reflected in
Hungarian 'szerda' > regionalism 'szereda'
As George said there is town in Transylvania named in Hungarian
Csikszereda:
"Its older form szereda ['særædO]. Still extant e.g. in the name
place Csikszereda (transl. i. Rum. Miercurea Ciuc)"
So Hungarian Derivation for 'szerda' clearly indicates the
Methatethic Slavic form *sreda:
'szerda' < regionalism (older form) 'szereda'< Sl. *sreda with
Methathesis.
What I want to show with this?
The Hungarian Slavic loans are not so old to not reflect an
epenthetic vowel whenever this one was added due to some consonantic
clusters.
But once again: there is no trace of this epenthetic vowel
in 'szarka' -> so no trace of Slavic Metathesis in Hungarian 'szarka'.
Only the Best,
Marius Alexandru
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, g <st-george@...> wrote:
> > 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
>
> Its older form szereda ['særædO]. Still extant e.g. in the name
place
> Csikszereda (transl. i. Rum. Miercurea Ciuc)
>
> > (*serda > Pol. s'roda, Russ. sereda, Cz. str^eda) although it
shows no
> > metathesis.
>
> BTW, any Slavic modern idiom with the variant <sreda>?
>
> > 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>.
>
> Yes, it needed to add an auxiliary vowel in that case, either
*szaraka
> or *eszraka or *szereke. [OTOH, the dropping of the 2nd vowel
> afterwards is usual --rak-- => --rk-- (cf. sarok => sarka, the
> inflected form with genitival/possessive semantics) "angle, corner;
> heel;..." / farok => farka "his/her/their tail"; farkaS "wolf"]
>
> For the same reason, Stephanos => in Hungarian István ['iSt-va:n];
> schola => iskola ['iSkolO]; <insert the Slav. word for "lard,
bacon">
> => Hung. szalona ['sOlonO]; stabulum > Stall > istálló
> & myriads of such examples.
>
> > Piotr
>
> George