Re: [tied] Rom. tsarca - Lit. s^árka

Some more examples of Hungarian epenthetic preserved vowels:

I think that the best Hungarian example showing the treatement of a
Slavic methathetic form in Hungarian (indicated also by Piotr) is:

6. Germ. Karl < Sl. kralj 'king' (Methathetic form) < Hun. Király

(see also: Rom. 'crai' also a Slavic loan showing the Methatetic
Slavic form and indicating that: lj > j finished in Romanian only
after this loan)


Other examples of Hungarian epenthetic vowel:

7. Hun. saroglya 'id.' 'stretcher, litter' (maybe the older Hun. form
was *taraglya) < Slavic (see Slov. form) *traglja <-> Germ. 'Trage'
<-> Lat. tra:gula.

(I cannot indicate what was the full loaning path in all these
languages but the epenthetic vowel in Hungarian is obvious and still
preserved).

(Rom. 'targa' 'id.' - I'm not sure from where was loaned viewing
its phonetism)

Only the Best,
Marius







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

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