Re: [tied] Rom. tsarca - Lit. s^árka

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Marius A: 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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to sustain my rule above (and until Piotr will post his
examples 'with no epenthetic vowel' as 'normal rule') I post below my
examples that clearly shows this epenthetic vowel in today Hungarian
Slavic Loans and not only there:


1. Hun. 'szerda' 'Wed.' < Hun. reg. 'szereda' < Sl. *sreda 'id.'
(see also Hun. town name : 'Csikszereda' <-> Romanian 'Miercurea
Ciuc')

2. Hun. 'szer-encse' 'luck' <-> Serb.-Cr. 'srec'a' 'happiness;
luck'

3. Hun 'fogát csikorgatja' 'to gnash one's teeth ' <->
Serb.-Cr. 'škrgutati' 'id.,'

and of course also the others ones that I already posted :

4. kereszteny < Christianus

5. karacsony < Rom. 'Craciun' 'Christmas'


So the ouput of a supposed Slavic loan in Hungarian from Sl. *sroka
would have been generated a Hun. form *szaraka or something
similar ...but there is no trace of such form in Hungarian...

The Hun. word 'szarka' is Only 'szarka' ...as it is in Romanian form
'tsarca' (and in Lit. form: 's~arka')

Only the Best,
Marius


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

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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