------------------------------------------------------------------
An older form with two
vowels may be accidentally preserved (as <szereda> is, as a placename
element), but its absence from Modern Hungarian in no way constitutes
a refutation of the Slavic origin of the word in question.
------------------------------------------------------------------
What you say above is not true at all. 'szereda' is
not 'Accidentally preserved' is the 'normal Rule' to have this
epenthetic vowels in Hungarian, so this is the Rule not the Accident
(see kereszteny < Christianus, karacsony < Craciun) etc..
(sorry for my Hungarian spelling if wrong)
As I said today we have the regionalism 'szereda'(for 'szerda')
that Still Exist Today in Hungarian and Not Only a place name.
-----------------------------------------------------------
but its absence from Modern Hungarian in no way constitutes a
refutation of the Slavic origin of the word in question.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Strange logic : So we have 'an absence' that speaks for 'an older
presence'? I hope is not Samuel Beckett's theather here...:)
Maybe this absence wasn't there from the beginning, is more simple
to imagine this, isn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern Hungarian words with /CerC/ regularly correspond to Slavic
prototypes with *CerC > *Cer&C, *Cre^C (or whatever the dialectal
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true either. Hungarian Slavic words reflecting CVrC derived in
fact from Hungarian older form CVrVC (where the first V is the
epenthetic vowel and the rest of the cluster reflecting the Slavic
Methathetic form *CrVC ...like in 'szerda' < 'szereda' that clearly
exemplifies my Rule above ... because Methatetic Slavic form was
*sreda.
(and not only Slavic clusters CrVC but Any CrVC cluster was treated
similar in old Hungarian)
As I show you in 'szereda' the Slavic Loans in Hungarian are not so
old in order not to find the Traces of the Epenthetic Vowel....
So the Total absence of this vowel is Not Normal at All: it clearly
shows that there wasn't any epenthetic vowel there, so we do not have
the Methathetic Slavic cluster *CrVC at all in that case, and as
result, we haven't a Slavic Loan either.
Once again, you start saying that 'szarka' is a Slavic loan and
suddenly, only in order to sustain your afirmation, 'szarka' became
an exception showing no trace of the epenthetic vowel.
Once again, you worked with a supposed singularity 'szarka' to
define an ad-hoc Rule : 'no traces of epenthetic vowels in today
Hungarian: normal case' (and you arrive at the end to assert that the
Real Normal Case 'szereda' is only 'an accident' because it 'didn't
lost yet, the existing epenthetic vowel' in its regional forms and in
the place names) ...
Is this a good logic? Of course not.
So please sustain further your idea by posting here some clear
examples of Slavic Loans in Hungarian reflecting a Methatetic Slavic
Form that clearly shows no traces of the epethentic vowel in order to
become credible in what you sustain....
You cannot give such examples because they not exist.
And at the end, please don't forget that the Romanian word
is 'tsarca' with 'No Methathesis' exactly like in the Hungarian
word 'szarka'...
(so at least we don't need to justify the Hungarian loaned form by
supposing older presences that vanished)
Only The Best,
Marius
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> On 04-12-03 18:49, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately for you, regarding 'szarka' you have to show us
the
> > missing epenthetic vowel otherwise your argumentation cannot go
> > further...(of course your insults can go further (but this is
only a
> > detail when your arguments dissapeared))...
>
> I apologise if I said anything that might be construed as
offensive. But
> I have already presented my arguments and you have not refuted
them.
> Modern Hungarian words with /CerC/ regularly correspond to Slavic
> prototypes with *CerC > *Cer&C, *Cre^C (or whatever the dialectal
> outcome of the metathesis in Pannonian Slavic). An older form with
two
> vowels may be accidentally preserved (as <szereda> is, as a
placename
> element), but its absence from Modern Hungarian in no way
constitutes a
> refutation of the Slavic origin of the word in question.
>
> Piotr